SUB-COMMITIEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITYversusJUSTICE V. RAMASWAMY

       SUB-COMMITIEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY                               A
                           v.
                JUSTICE V. RAMASWAMY

                           OCTOBER 20, 1994

          [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, 01, A.M. AHMADI                               B
                   AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.)

      Contempt of Courts. Act, 1971:

      CRIMINAL CONTEMPT-Petition for suo motu proceedings for con-            C
tempt-Enquiry committee Constituted under Judges (Inquiry) Act for
removai of a Judge-Leter written by the judge to Committee making certain
sweeping allegations against certain Judges and Judiciary-Court expressed
unhappiness about the episode-However, Court declined in larger interest to
suo motu institute proceedings for contempt against respondent.
                                                                              D
       The 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability', a group of mem-
bers, of the legal profession, filed this petition for suo motu initiation of
proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent. The respondent
was stated to have written a letter to the Enquiry Committee constituted
under the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 for removal of the respondent E
initiated by the Parliament. In this letter the respondent was said to have
made certain sweeping allegations against certain Judges and the
Judiciary.

      Dismissing the petition, this Court
                                                                              F
      HELD: 1.1 Though the letter, read by itself, raises certain apprehen-
sions about its propriety, the respondent himself by his subsequent letter
has explained the context in which it was written and the apprehensions
about the generality of its sweep stands mitigated. However, lot of
misunderstanding could have been avoided if the letter had not been G
written. (640-G-H]

      But, on careful consideration of the matter, while expressing unhap-
piness about the episode, this Court declined in the larger interest to suo
motu institute any proceedings for contempt against the respondent.
                                                                    (641-AJ · H
                                   639
    640                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
    (Crl.) No. 6 of 1992.

          Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

          Shan,ti Bhushan, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant
B Bhushan alld A.K. Nigam for the Petitioner.

        Dipankar Prasad Gupta, Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini, K.
    Swamy an<! M.M. Gangadeb for the Respondent.

C         The following Order of the Court was delivered:

           The 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability', a group of members
    of the leg<i! profession, bas brought this petition for suo motu initiation of
    proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent. The matter is
D   stated to arise out of a letter dated 21st January, 1992 which the respondent
    wrote to the Enquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry)
    Act, 1968 in certain proceedings for removal of the respondent initiated by
    the Parliament. In this letter the respondent is said to have made certain
    sweeping allegations against certain Judges and the Judiciary. A copy of
    that letter is Annexure 'A' to the petition.
E
          We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have sought
    the assistance of Sri Dipankar Gupta, learned Solicitor General. We place
    on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by the
    learned counsel on both sides.
F
          Thete is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2164 of 1992 filed by
    Sri K.K. Jba, 'Kamal', Advocate, Patna High Court, for intervention. In our
    opinion, this application for intervention is misconceived and is dismissed.

          Though the letter, read by itself, raises certain apprehensions about
G   its propriety, however, the respondent himself by bis subsequent letter
    dated 28.3.1992, which bas since been brought on record, has explained
    the context in which it was written and the apprehensions about the
    generality of its sweep stand mitigated. However, we feel that a lot of
    misunderstanding could have been avoided if the letter Annexure 'A' had
H   not been written. We are unhappy that it came to be written.
SUB-COMMITI'EE ON JUDL. ACCOUNTABIUTY v. JUSTCE V. RAMASWAMY 641

      But, on a careful consideration of the matter we, while expressing .A
our unhappiness about the episode, however think we should decline in the
larger interest to suo motu institute any proceedings for contempt against
the respondent. The petition is dismissed accordingly.

A.G.                                                 Petition dismissed.