Contempt of court – Giriraj Kishore 96 years- not in a position to respond to the query because of hearing impairment and feeble mental condition. – Apex court held that We are also not oblivious of the fact that the Court was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by contemner No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. But, the fact of the matter is that despite the order passed on 06.05.1994, the notice accompanied by charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far. In this view of the matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96 years and he is not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do not think that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further. – closed the contempt case = CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2 OF 1994 Rajeev Dhawan …… Petitioner Vs. Gulshan Kumar Mahajan & Ors. …… Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41785
Contempt of court – Giriraj Kishore 96 years- not in a position to respond to the
query because of hearing impairment and feeble mental condition. – Apex court held that We are also not oblivious of the fact that the Court was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by contemner No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. But, the fact of the matter is that despite the order passed on 06.05.1994, the notice accompanied by charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far. In this view of the matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96 years and he is not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do not think that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further. – closed the contempt case =
On 26.03.2014, contemner No.3, Giriraj Kishore was brought
to the Court on wheel chair by his attendant.
Learned senior counsel for
the contemner No.3 reiterated that notice for personal appearance
accompanied by charges as directed by the Court on 06.05.1994 has not been
served on the contemner.
He also submitted that contemner No.3 is 96 years
and is not able to respond due to severe physical and mental illness.
The
attendant accompanying contemner No.3, Giriraj Kishore, on the query of the
Court, informed that contemner No.3 is not in a position to respond to the
query because of hearing impairment and feeble mental condition.
11. One thing is clear from the record that the notice for personal
appearance accompanied by charges as directed by this Court in the order
dated 06.05.1994, after cognizance of contempt was taken, has not been
served on contemner No.3 so far.
In a situation such as this, the question
that arises immediately for our consideration is, whether the Court should
direct the service of notice accompanied by charges now.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan
vehemently contended that the backdrop to these cases is the destruction of
the Babri Masjid on 06.12.1992. According to him, this had resulted in
injury to the secular fabric of India.
He submitted that tension persisted
as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad held a Sansad on 03-04.04.1994 while hearings
were taking place before this Court.
Contemner No. 3 made contemptuous
statements about the Court at that time and, therefore, matter of this
gravity should not be left undecided.
12. We appreciate the gravity of the subject matter highlighted by
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan.
We are also not oblivious of the fact that the Court
was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by contemner
No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the contempt
proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
But, the fact of the matter is
that despite the order passed on 06.05.1994, the notice accompanied by
charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far.
In this view of the
matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant
for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96 years and he is not
able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do not think
that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further.
Now,
since contempt proceedings are not being pursued further to find out
criminality against the author (contemner No.3) who made the offending
statements, we are of the view that contempt matter does not deserve to be
pursued as against contemner Nos. 1 and 2 as well.
The contemner Nos.1 and
2 have also tendered unconditional apology. Insofar as contemner Nos.4 to
6 are concerned, the Court has not yet taken cognizance of criminal
complaint against them.
In what has been said above, we think the contempt
matters deserve to be closed. We order accordingly.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment