Holding

The allegations of criminal intimidation are not without substance, but the Supreme Court will not prescribe disciplinary action, instead directing the Union and States to provide adequate security to CAT members.

Summary

A Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Shri B.V. Rao, was staying in a state‑run guest house when senior police officials, led by Inspector General Nirmala Choudhary, forcibly entered his room, abused and intimidated him, and seized his documents. An FIR was lodged under Sections 143, 144, 146, 323, 339 and 352 of the IPC and criminal contempt proceedings were initiated in the Jharkhand High Court and the Patna Bench of CAT. The State of Jharkhand admitted the allegations, stating that the senior police officer suffered from a mental disorder and that the other officers were suspended. The Supreme Court held that the allegations of intimidation were not without substance but declined to intervene in the disciplinary proceedings pending before the lower courts, leaving that to the appropriate authorities. It directed the Union and the States to provide minimum courtesy and adequate security to all CAT members within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

The existence and substance of the alleged criminal intimidation of a CAT judicial member by police officials.
Whether the Supreme Court can direct disciplinary action against the police officers while contempt and criminal proceedings are pending in lower courts.
The obligation of the Union and State governments to ensure security and courtesy for members of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 144, s. 146, s. 323, s. 339, s. 352

Subjects

criminal intimidationjudicial officerCentral Administrative Tribunalpolice misconductmental disordersecurity of judgescontempt of courtArticle 32FIRIPC sections

Judgment

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 580

A IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER ..,.
·~
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 23 of 2008)
AUGUST 25, 2009
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND DR.
B B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

Letters Petition - Criminal intimidation of judicial officer,
of CAT - By police officials - Suo motu writ petition and ~
criminal contempt proceedings before High Court - Criminal
c Contempt before Patna Bench of CAT - Judicial member's
letter to Chief Justice of India narrating the incident treated
as criminal writ petition - State Government accepting the
a/legation stating that incident occurred because the senior
police official suffered from mental disarder - Held: The
D allegations are not without substance - Direction to the High
Court and Tribunal to proceed with the pending writ petition ,._ .....,

and contempt proceedings - State authorities to decide the
suitability of the senior police official to be in service -
Direction to Central and State Governments to provide
E minimum courtesy and adequate security to Members of
CAT.

A Judicial Member of Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT) during his official stay in a Guest House of the
~·
State was criminally intimidated by a high police official
F (respondent No. 3) and eight other police officials. FIR
was lodged in this respect. A writ petition and criminal
contempt was initiated before Jharkhand High Court.
Patna Bench of CAT also initiated criminal contempt
proceedings against the police officials. The Judicial
G Officer wrote letter to the Chief Justice of India narrating
the incident and requested to take appropriate steps to
protect members of CAT. The letter was treated as
- ~ ...
criminal writ petition. Respondent-State Government ........
admitted all the allegations and stated that respondent
H 580
IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER 581

-. '"' No. 3 had acted in haste and under the effect of mental A
disorder. State Government also state.d that the eight
police officials had been suspended. Respondent No. 3
gave unconditional apology stating that the incident was
unintentional and under the effect of mental disorder.
8
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1. Allegations of criminal intimidation and
' humiliation of the judicial member of CAT at the hands
of respondent No. 3 and eight other police personnel
along with her, cannot be said to be without any C
substance. As the State of Jharkhand had conducted a
full-fledged enquiry and submitted the report and,
considering the fact that the writ petition and criminal
contempt petition are pending in Jharkhand High Court
and in CAT Bench at Patna, this court does not consider D
it proper to express any opinion as to what action is
required to be taken against the erring officers in respect
of the said incident. [Para 15) [587-C-E]

2. The concerned Court/Tribunal would proceed in
accordance with law. It is for the State Authorities to E
decide as to whether respondent No. 3 fit to render any
service to the State and if so, in what capacity. [Para 15)
[587-E]

3. It is directed that the Union of India and respective F
States would provide minimum courtesy required and
adequate security to all the Members of the CAT.
Necessary instructions be issued to all the authorities/
persons concerned under the control of State
Governments and Union Territories. [Para 16] [587-G-H] G

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition
(Crl.) Nos. 23 of 2008.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A U.U. Lalit, (AC.), Raju Ramachandran, Manish Kumar (for !! .....
Gopal Singh), Naresh Kaushik, Subhash Kaushik, Rupesh
Kaushik (for Sushma ~uri), Anil K. Jha, Manoranjan Kumar Jha,
Rajiv Kumar Singh, Alok Kumar for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. e;s. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This case i~ an eye opener
as it reveals that those who have been assigned the solemn ~
duty to dispense justice are facing criminal intimidation at the
ljlands of the authorities which have the responsibility to
c maintain the law and order.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition
are that Shri B.V. Rao, Judicial Member of Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'CAT') was asked by
D the Hon'ble Chairman of the CAT to hold the Circuit Court at ,..
Ranchi, Jharkhand from 18.2.2008 to 22.2.2008. After
receiving intimation from Principal Bench CAT, New Delhi, the
officer concerned at Ranchi Bench asked for reservation of
accommodation for Shri B.V. Rao to the Secretary to the
Government of Jharkhand in the Home Department. In
E
consequence thereof the DIG (Personnel) was asked for
reservation of two suites for two members of CAT in the
Khukhari Guest House. Room no. 206 in that guest house was
allotted to Shri B.V. Rao. The said room was occupied by Shri
B.V. Rao on proper authorization and allotments. When Shri
F B.V. Rao came back from the Tribunal to the Guest House on
21.2.2008 at about 4.30 p.m., Smt. Nirmala Choudhary,
Inspector General of Police (R-3) interrogated him as to in what
capacity he was staying there? lnspite of disclosing his identity
by Shri B.V. Rao and informing her about the purpose for which
G he had come there, she left the room. After a short while, at
about 5.15 p.m., eight police personnel, who were in uniform . ......
: )'-

and having arms, forcibly opened the door of his room after
breaking the bolt. They abused Shri B.V. Rao and searched
the entire room. They did not even spare to examine the judicial
H
IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER 583
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
~ records of CAT. Those police persons dragged Shri Rao to the A
ground floor along with his belongings where Smt. Nirmala
Choudhary (R-3) was standing. She forced him to open his suit
case, brief-case and all other belongings. She had taken away
his identity card, flight ticket, tour programme sheet and
authorization letter granted by the Chairman for holding the court B
at Ranchi besides he was criminally intimidated and abused.

3. Immediately, after the incident, Shri B.V. Rao informed
the Director General of Police (hereinafter called 'DGP'),
Jharkhand about the incident on the same day. The DGP
directed Shri P.R.K. Naidu, IG, Special Branch to look into the c
matter and report immediately. After conducting the enquiry,
Shri P.R.K. Naidu, IG submitted his report on 22.2.2008.
According to the said report, Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3)
was not in a right frame of mind and suffering from some kind
-1 of sehizophrenia. The armed persons who were on duty along D
with her had carried out her illegal orders. On the next day, the
DGP along with other senior officers met Shri B.V. Rao in his
room and apologized personally for grave inconvenience
caused to him due to unpardonable behaviour of senior police
officer disclosing that Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) was E
suffering from mental disorder.

4. However, considering the incident of 21.2.2008, an FIR
was lodged in Doranda Police Station by Shri Bandi Bhagat,
Office lncharge, CAT, Ranchi giving full details of the incident.
F
Thus, an FIR in Case No. 43 dated 22.2.2008 under Sections
143, 144, 146, 323, 339 and 352 IPC stood registered against
Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) and eight police persons. In the
meanwhile, Shri B.V. Rao, Judicial Member of CAT wrote letter
to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and Hon'ble Chairman of

. ~ ~
CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi narrating the entire incident G
and requested to take appropriate steps to protect the
members of CAT in future to avoid such unfortunate situation .
The said letter was treated as a criminal writ petition. This
Court, vide order dated 3rd March, 2008 issued notices to
.
'
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Union of India, State of Jharkhand and Smt. Nirmala Choudhary ~
(R-3).
)-
5. The Hon'ble Chairman of CAT, New Delhi took up the
matter with the Hon'ble Minister of State, Ministry of Personnel
Grievances and Pensions by writing a letter dated 25th
B February, 2008 expressing his grave concern about the safety
and security of judicial and administrative· members of CAT
giving details of the incident. On 10th March, 2008, the High
Court of Jharkhand initiated the criminal contempt proceedi"ngs
suo motu. In WP(C) No. 1233 of 2008 (Court on its own Motion
c vs. The State of Jharkhand) the Court passed the order dated
2/3.3.2008 asking learned Advocate General to look into the
matter and to take immediate appropriate action in the case.
However, considering the fact that this Court had taken
cognizance of the incident, the High Court deferred the hearing
D of the said case vide order dated 10.3.2008.

6. The CAT, Patna Bench also initiated criminal contempt
proceedings in case No. 22 of 2008 against Smt. Nirmala
Choudhary (R-3) and eight armed police personnel vide Order
dated 22.4.2008. The said matter is still pending consideration.
E
However, on the letter written by Hon'ble Chairman of the CAT,
no action has been taken by the Ministry concerned till today.
Ample opportunities had been given to the respondents in this
criminal Writ Petition to file their affidavits. The State of ~
Jharkhand and Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) have filed their
F
respective replies. But Union of India (R-1) did not fi~ the reply.
The State ofJharkhand (R-2) through its Home Secretary, Shri
Sudhir Tripathi has admitted that there had been proper
reservation for Shri B.V. Rao, learned member of CAT in the
said guest house. However, the incident occurred because
G Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) was not in a right frame of mind
and was suffering from schizophrenia. The armed constables • ~·

along with her, otieyed her illegal orders and intimidated Shri ~
B.V. Rao. Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) had acted in haste
under the effect of mental disorder. She had been examined
H
"'"
i

IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER 585
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
• medically immediately,, after the incident at Ranchi as well as A
at Bangalore and it has been diagnosed that she was under
"delusion disorder in partial remissionn. It has been assured by
the State Government that it would take all steps in accordance
with law in the case arising out of the said incident.
B
7. The State of Jharkhand (R-2) had admitted that every
allegation and averment made by Shri B.V. Rao was factually
correct and Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) had not only
misbehaved with Shri B.V. Rao but scolded Mess lncharge also
who was present there and asked him to leave the place
immediately or else he would be sent to jail. It is further admitted c
that the other eight security personnel misbehaved with Shri
B.V. Rao and the said security personnel had been put under
suspension. r-

-1 8. A certificate of Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychatry and D
Allied Sciences (RINPAS) dated 3rd March, 2008 has been
placed on record according to which Smt. Nirmala Choudhary
(R-3) suffered from "psychosis Paranoid Delusional Disorder".

9. Smt. Nirmala Choudhary(R-3) has filed the affidavit
dated 15th November 2008 in reply and tendered absolute and E
unconditional apology for the incident. It has been further stated
that she was suffering from mental disorder. Therefore, she
1
could hardly remember the actual incident which had taken
place. Thus, she had done nothing intentionally. In para 14 of
her affidavit, she has stated as under : F

"That it is most humbly submitted that on account of her
mental imbalance and delusionary frame of mind the
deponent had no control over her power of reason or over
-i
her behaviour particularly when confronted with strangers" G
,\

1O. She has also placed several letters and press clippings
showing that she had always been asking for her personal
security apprehending the risk to her life though it might be
because of her mental imbalance.
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

j,
A 11. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, appearing as
Amicus Curiae, has brought to the notice of this Court, the
"
repeated incidents of abuses and criminal intimidation with the
members of the CAT and placed the facts of the connected Writ
Petition No. 74 of 2007 wherein the unfortunate incident
,,:.
B occurred at the residence of Ms. Sadhana Shrivastava, a
Judicial member of CAT, Patna Bench by the gan_gsters
wherein on~ person also lost life. However, we are not taking
note of the facts of the said case, as the said case is to be
decided separately and has been delinked from this case.
c However, it is evident that all is not good so far as the safety ,._
and security of the Members of the CAT are concerned. Shri
Lalit submitted that in the present case, a superior officer of
the police has intimidated.,t~e judicial member of CAT though ..._
,___

D
she might be suffering from mental disorder. However, there
had been no response by the concerned Ministries in the Union ,. .,
.<

of India to the letter written by the Hon'ble Chairman of CAT
dated 25th February 2008 giving reference to his earlier letter
dated 6th June, 2007 asking for providing security to the
Chairman and Members of the CAT, this Court must ensure that
proper security be provided to the Members of the CAT so that
:E they may be saved from any untoward and unsavoury incident
in future. It is an obligation on the part of the State authorities
and all other concerned persons to provide a conducive ~
atmosphere for dispensation of justice.

F 12. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand
has assured the Court that State Government would ensure
safety of all the Members of CAT so that such incident may not
be repeated.

13. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the
G Union of India has submitted that in view of the prevailing ,....
circumstances, the Union of India and respective State "
Authorities are under the obligation to provide not only the
minimum courtesy but also adequate security to all the
Members of the CAT.
H
IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER 587
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
14. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel A
appearing for Smt. Nirmala Choudhary(R-3) has submitted that
whatever unfortunate incident had happened, it was unintentional ,
and because of the fact that she (R-3) was suffering from mental
disorder. She is facing proceedings for criminal contempt
initiated by CAT, Patna. He has also suggested that proper B
security to all the Members of CAT is required to protect them
from any kind of humiliation and intimidation.

15. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records. Allegations of
criminal intimidation and humiliation of Shri B.V. Rao at the C
hands of Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) and eight other police
personnel along with her, cannot be said to be without any
substance. As the State of Jharkhand (R-2) had conducted a
full-fledged enquiry and submitted the report and, considering
the fact that the writ petition and criminal contempt petition are D
pending in Jharkhand High Court and in CAT Bench at Patna,
we do not consider it proper to express any opinion as to what
action is required to be taken against the erring officers in
respect of the said incident. The concerned CourVfribunal would
proceed in accordance with law and undoubtedly the cases E
would reach to their logical ends. It is, however, clarified that
any observation made herein above, would not prejudice the
case of either party. It is for the State Authorities to decide as
to whether Smt. Nirmala Choudhary (R-3) is fit to render any
service to the State and if so, in what capacity. F

16. However, considering the fact-situation of this case and
other existing exceptional circumstances and taking into
account the suggestions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the Union of India and for the State of Jharkhand,
it is directed that the Union of India and respective States would G
provide minimum courtesy required and adequate security to
all the Members of the CAT, within a period of eight weeks from
today. Necessary instructions be issued to all the authorities/
persons concerned under the control of State Governments and
Union Territories. H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 17. Before parting with the case, we express our thanks
and gratitude to Shri U.U. Lalit, learned Senior Advocate for
rendering assistance to the Court as Amicus Curiae.

18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar, CAT,
B Principal Bench, New Delhi for taking appropriate steps for
implementation of directions issued herein.

19. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. -;

K.K.T. Writ Petition disposed of.

)< -