Supreme Court of India
TARUN BHARAT SINGH, ALWARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 502
- Decided
- 8 November 1994
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Court held that the respondents committed criminal contempt by threatening and abusing a senior Supreme Court advocate, but accepted their unconditional apologies with a stern warning, and disposed of the contempt application.
Summary
The petitioner, Tarun Bharat Singh, sought criminal contempt proceedings against Dr. Upendra Dublish and Advocate Ratan Katyani for threatening and using abusive language towards a senior Supreme Court advocate during a protest against mining restrictions in the Sariska Tiger Reserve. The Supreme Court examined affidavits and corroborating statements, finding that the respondents had indeed disrupted the meeting, threatened the advocate, and used offensive language. Both respondents tendered unconditional apologies, attributing their conduct to agitation over alleged unjust termination of their employment. The Court accepted the apologies but issued a severe warning that any similar conduct in the future would not be tolerated. Consequently, the interlocutory applications were disposed of and the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the conduct of Dr. Dublish and Advocate Katyani amounted to criminal contempt of the Supreme Court.
- Whether an unconditional apology can mitigate the contempt liability.
- Whether protective orders should be issued for the petitioner’s organization and its members.
Legislation cited
Subjects
criminal contemptSupreme CourtSariska Tiger Reservemining restrictionsabusive languageunconditional apologyprotective orderinterlocutory application
Judgment
TARUN BHARAT SINGH, AL WAR A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 8, 1994
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT-Sariska Tiger Reserve Area-Mining activi-
ties-Restraining of-Case pending in Supreme Court-Counsel appearing
in case was threatened by a doctor and an advocate using abusive
language-Unconditional apologies tendered-Accepted with severe C
warning and to be careful in future.
This application had been filed by the petitioner to punish the
respondents, an advocate and a doctor for criminal contempt of the
Supreme Court.
In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, several orders were D
passed by this Court restraining mining activity in the Sariska Tiger
Reserve area. On account of that, the mine owners in the area and their
supporters were threatening and harassing the Secretary and other
office bearers and members of the petitioner organisation.
At the instance of the organisation, a Senior Advocate of the E
Supreme Court went to the Sariska Tiger Reserve area to make a spot
inspection. A meeting was also organized in the office premises of the
petitioner. While the meeting was in progress, some perso~ burst into
the hall and started shouting slogans and disrupting the meeting. It was
stated by the senior advocate that when he wanted to leave the place he F
was prevented from leaving. The disrupters raised slogans "Khan
bandh karane wale, hai hai." ·
The respondents denied the allegations. They stated that
respondent and his wife were employed by the petitioner - organisation
as doctors and they were abruptly and unceremoniously removed from G
service. He was agitated and he alongwith other similarly placed
employees gathered at the office of the organisation to register their
protest.
The senior advocate filed a rejoinder, affirming that respondent
told him that he was disrupting the meeting because of the Sariska case H
285
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A and that he used abusive language. It was also stated that he threatened
the senior advocate for his involvement. Several affidavits of the
persons who were present at the spot on that occasion had also been
filed supporting the version given by the senior counsel of petitioner
organisation.
B An additional affidavit had been tiled by the respondent denying
the several averments made in the supparting affidavits and also
tendering unconditional apology. Respondent K, an advocate by
profession also filled an affidavit tendering unconditional apology,
requesting the Court to take a lenient view in the matter.
c Disposing of the matter, this Court
HELD 1.1 It is evident from a reading of the affidavits of the
petitioner's counsel and the counter affidavits of the respondent that
the latter has not specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner's
counsel. The avermeflts of the petitioner's counsel are also supported in
full by the affidavits of other persons who were present on the occasion.
D
(291-D, F)
1.2 It is a matter of extreme regret and serious concern that an
educated person, a doctor should have behaved in the above manner
towards an advocate of the Supreme Court who was appearing for the
petitioner-organisation in Sariska Case. The conduct of the
E respondent was certainly offensive. This Court would have taken
serious note of the same but for the circumstances that he has tendered
an unconditional apology for his behaviour which he attributes to his
agitated state of mind caused by, what according to him, was a totally
unjustified, abrupt and unceremonious termination of the services of
himself and his wife. In that agitated state of mind, the respondent
F behaved offensively towards petitioner's counsel as well, which
behaviour is without doubt condemnable and for which he regrets now.
The respondent has since -left that area and is now employed at Jaipur
and he is no manner connected with the petitioner organisation.
- (291-G-H,292-A, D)
G In view of the above circumstances , the unconditional -apology
tendered is accepted but with a severe warning to him not to indulge in
similar activities in future. (292-E)
1.3 So far as the respondent R is concerned, he has unconditionally
tendered an unqualified a·pology. Having regard to the fact that he too
H is a member of the legal profession and a social activitist in that area,
T. B. SINGH v. U.0.1 287
his unconditional apology is accepted. This Court is sure that he would A
be careful in future and would give no occasion for any such complaint.
(292-F)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application Nos.
13 and 15of1993.
IN
B
Writ Petition (C) No. 509of1991.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
•
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, G. Prakash, K.C. Agarwal, Aruneshwar Gupta, C
S.S. Jauhar, S.K. Jain, K.B. Rohatgi, Ms. Subhashini, Rajesh and S.K.
Bhattacharya for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
I.A. NO. 13 OF 1993
D
This application is filed by the petitioner-Tarun Bharat Sangh to
punish the respondent , Shri Ratan Katyani and Dr. Upendra Dublish for
criminal contempt of this court and for other incidental directions. In
support of this application, affidavit of Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, counsel
appearing for the petitioner, is filed. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, now a senior E
advocate of this Court, has been appearing for the petitioner in this case
over the last three or more years. In this affidavit, Shri Dhawan has stated
the following facts:
In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, several orders have been
passed by this court from time to time restraining mining activity in the F
Sariska Tiger Reserve Area. On account of this, the mine owners in the area
and their supporters have been threatening and harassing the secretary and
other office bearers and members of the petitioner-organisation, Tarun
Bharat Sangh, in several ways. On a previous occasion, one of the mine
owners assaulted the secretary of the petitioner-organisation, Shri
·Rajinder Singh, in the very. presence of Shri Justice M.C. Jain, a G
Commissioner appointed by this Court, for which act he was convicted by
the court for criminal contempt of this court and sentenced to imprisonment
for one week.
At the instance of the petitioner - organisation, he (Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan) went to the Sariska Tiger Reserve area to make a spot inspection H
288 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A on 3rd April, 1993. In that connection, a meeting was organised by the
petitioner organisation at I 0:30 A.M. on 4th April, 1993 in the office
premises of the petitioner. When he went to the site of the meeting on that
morning, he found some persons picketing at the entrance. Shri Ratan
Katyani, Advocate was at the micro-phone. He was, however, allowed to
pass and enter the meeting hall. While the meeting was in progress, some
B persons burst into the hall and started shouting slogans and disrupting the
meeting. He went out and told the disrupters that they should not do so,
where upon they advanced towards him and surrounded him. He was
pushed by one or two persons. At about 1.00 P.M., another incident took
place which is set out in para 6 of the affidavit. It reads:
c "6. Around'l P.M. or so, the same group but this time led
by a person called Dr. Upendra Dublish advanced towards
me and Rajinder Singh and ·:surrounded us. He told me that
he would not let my meeting continue; and, if necessary
destroy the ashram. I told him that I was simply having a
meeting with my client and such persons whom my client
D had invited. Dr. Dublish, I am given to understand used to
work for my client and had recently resigned because he
had accepted a job offer elsewhere. I told him that I was ~
I
only briefed in the case before the Supreme Court and that
he could sort his other matters with my client later. He said
that it was in connection with the case and matters
E
concerning the environment that he wished to disrupt the
meeting. In the main what he had to say was abusive and
added that he did not care about the Supreme Court which
can do nothing to him. I again requested that persons at the
meeting be allowed to have their lunch and continue their
F discussions with me. He refused. Instead he created turmoil
at the mP.eting. He, then, with the persons he came with,
tried to break the video room, entered my clients office to
use the phone. He also threatened to bum up the place and
the x-ray room. Along with others, he overturned some
food dishes and continued this disruption for an hour. My
G client tried to reason with him; and, I continued to talk to
some of the villagers who were clearly threatened by this
and fed up that important issues connected with the case
remained undiscussed." I
r
Dr. Dhawan further stated that when he wanted to leave the place he
H was prevented from leaving whereupon he was obliged to leave by another ....
~.
I
T. B. SINGH v. U.0.1 289
exit with the assistance of the Police. He alongwith Rajinder Singh then A
went to the Police Station, Thanagazi and lodged a complaint about the
incident. While they were. there, they received the information that the
miscreants had attacked the ashram and sought to cause damage to the
ashram property and that had the nearby villagers not intervened, they
would have demolished the entire premises. While he was there at the meet-
ing place, the disrupters raised slogan "Khan bandh krane wale, hai, hai" B
(Down with those who have got the mines closed). ·
On this application being filed, this court issued notices to the
respondent. I.A.No. 15 of 1993 filed by the petitioner was also taken up
along this application. On May IO, 1993, the following order was made by
a Bench comprising P.B. Sawant, J. and one of us (B.P. Jeevan Ready, J.): C
" ............ Shri Rajendra Singh has further filed an additional
application for directions today supported by an affidavit in
which various events have been narrated which show that
he has been subjected to different kinds of pressure and
threats against his life. If the averments made in this D
application are true there is no doubt that they call for a
serious action at the hands of this Court. We, therefore,
direct the issue of bailable warrants against Shri Ratan
Katyani and Dr. Upendra Dublish who are operating the
Thanagazi and direct the District Magistrate, Alwar to
personally see that the said warrants are served on the E
aforesaid two individuals. The warrants are made returnable
on 14.5.93 . The said two individuals should be directed to
remain present in this Court on that day. The warrants
should be issued forthwith by today itself. The warrants
may be issued telegraphically at the cost of petitioner........."
F
The respondents have appeared and filed their responses. Dr. Dublish
has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made against him. He
has stated that he and his wife were employed by the petitioner-
organisation as doctors and that on April 4, 1993 they were abruptly and
unceremoniously removed from service, without even serving a written
order. This was done with a view to prevent exposure of several mal- G
practices in the running of the petitioner's hospital. Because he was forcibly
removed from his posts, he was agitated and he alongwith similarly
removed employees gathered at the office of the petitioner organisation at
about 4 P.M. on that day (April 4, 1993) to register their protest. So far as
the allegations of Dr. Dhawan against him are concerned, he replied to
them in the following words : H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A "I emphatically state that I have nothing to do with Dr.
Dhawan nor did I do anything to Dr. Dha"".an for which he
can even remotely involve me in any manner whatsoever. I
would respectfully submit that he be put to strict proof
about my involvement in any manner. I submit that I have
nothing to do with mine owners nor with the cause of the
B environment which is totally different from my
unceremonious dismissal from service. I respectfully submit
that I recent an advocate casting aspersions on my integrity
or character in such standerous manner. ·
It is pertinent to mention that I came to know that at the
c assistance of my friends that a case under section I 07
Cr.P.C. has been instructed to be levelled against me at the
instance· of Dr. Rajeev Dhawan by three petitioner
organisation. In view of the protest voiced by me alongwith
the staff of the scheme for our wrongful termination of
service. I emphatically deny that I had in any way intended
D or threatened to cause hurt to any one or destroy any goods
for I am a doctor and my duty is to treat the patients with
care and sympathy and have never tried to hurt any one
even remotely. It is true that I had protested for my il!egal
and unceremonious eviction in peaceful manner by raising
voices against the consequent and have not caused any
E
damage to any property. In fact in his complaint Shri
Rajencier Singh has not alleged any breakage of any
property and all that is said that I had threatened to do so
which is oblige the question."
F Dr. qhawan has filed a rejoinder reiterating the facts stated in his
original affidavit. He affirmed that Dr. Dublish told him that he was
disrupting the meeting because of the Sariska case and that he used abusive
language and was shouting and that was not enable to any reasoning, all the
time protesting against his resignation. Dr. Dhawan stated "he (Dr.
Dublish) again threatened me. for my involvement and said that he would
G disrupt the ashram and I would not be able to leave." Several affividavits of
the persons who were present at that spot on that occasion have also been
filed by the petitioner. All the said deponents have supported the version
given by Dr. Dhawan.
Dr. Dublish has filed an additional affidavit on 22nd September, 1994
H where he denied the several averments made in the supporting affidavits
T. B. SINGH v. U.0.1 2.91
and stated that he has nothing to do with the mine-owners or the A
environment problem, with respect to which Writ Petition No. 509 of 1991
is filed in this court. He stated that he is a doctor by profession and he was
only protesting against the unceremonious and abrupt dismissal from the
petitioner's service. He stated that he did not cause any hurt to any of the
employees of the petitioner-organisation and that he did not and could
never have conceived of flouting the orders of this court. He stated further B
(in paragraph 8) that "I state and submit that my education, background,
training and experience militates against casting aspersions on the integrity
of any individual. Therefore, I most humbly beseech this Hon'ble Court
that ifthere has been any transgression of the Rule of law by me it has been
due to indadvertance and I tender unqualified apology for the same."
c
So far as Shri Katyani is concerned, he is an advocate by profession
and he has filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology, requesting
this court to take a lenient view in the matter.
It is evident from a reading of the affidavits of Dr. Dhawan and the
counter affidavits of Dr. Dublish that the latter has not specifically denied D
the allegation of Dr. Dhawan that Dr. Dublish advanced towards him while
he was therewith Rajinder Singh, surrounded them and told Dr. Dhawan, in
particular, that he would not allow the meeting to continue. There is also no
specific denial of the allegation of Dr. Dhawan to the effect that Dr.
Dublish asserted that he wished to disrupt the meeting precisely because of
the environment case pending in this Court. There is equally no specific E
denial of the allegation of Dr. Dhawan that the language used by him (Dr.
Dublish) was abusive and his declaration that he did not care about the
Supreme Court which can do nothing to him. In the circumstances, we
accept the version of Dr. Dhawan as set out in his affidavit. It follows that
Dr. Dublish did threaten and overawe Dr. Dhawan (and the office bearers F
of the petitioner-organisation) and used abusive langl_lage against him
because of Dr. Dhawan's appearance in this matter. The averments of Dr.
Dhawan are also supported in full by the affidavits of other persons who
were present on the occasion.
It is a matter of extreme regret and serious concern that an educated G
person, like Dr. Dublish should. have behaved in the above manner towards
an advocate of this court who was appearing for the petitioner -
organisation in Writ Petition No. 509 of 199 l. The conduct of Dr. Dublish
.:was certainly offensive. He would have taken serious note of the same but
for the circumstance that he has tendered an unconditional apology for his
behaviour which he attributes to his agitated state of mind caused by, what H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A according to him, was a totally unjustified, abrupt and unceremonious
termination of the services of himself and his wife besides some other
employees by the petitioner- organisation on that day. He says that he and
other similarly placed employees were protesting against the same at the
office premises. of petitioner- organisation. It so happened that Dr.
Dhawan' s visit coincided with the said event. It also appears that some
B persons at that spot were the men of mine owners who were demonstrating
against the petitioner - organisation fitting the cause of environment and
both these groups got mixed up. The petitioner - organisation, no doubt,
says that they did not terminate the services of Dr. Dublish but that he .
himself voluntarily resigned the job. While we do not wish to enter into the
question whether it was a case of termination or resignation, what appears
c revelvant is that Dr. Dublish thought that he has been unjustly treated and
on which account, he was highly agitated on that day and resorted to said
agitational methods soon upon knowing about the loss of his job. In that
agitated state of mind, Dr. Dublish behaved offensively towards Dr.
Dhawan as well, which behaviour is without a doubt condemnable and for
which he regrets now. There is yet another circumstance, viz., Dr. Dublish
D has since left that area and is now employed at Jaipur. He has stated that he
is no manner connected with the petitioner - organisation, much less with
. the mine owners or with the dispute concerning mining in Sariska Tiger
Reserve area.
In view of the above circumstances, we accept the unconditional
E apology tendered by Or. Dublish but with a severe warning to him not to
indulge in similar activities in future.
So far as Shri Ratan Katyani is concerned, he has unconditionally
tendered an unqualified apology. Having regards to the fact that he too is a
member of the legal profession and a social activities in that area, we accept
F his unconditional apology. We are sure that Shri Katyani would be careful
in future and would give no occasion for any such complaint. Interlocutory
Application No. 13 of 1993 is ordered accordingly. No costs.
I.A. NO. 15 OF 1993
G The prayers in this Interlocutory Application are the following :
"(a). That a direction be given to the respondent- State of
Rajasthan to provide immediate and effective protection to
the petitioner organisation including all those associated·
H with its work and its property.
T. B. SINGH v. U.0.1 293
In particular, Special protection should be provided to its A
Secretary, Shri Rajendra Singh;
(b) That Dr. Dublish and Mr. Ratan Katyani be restrained
from entering the premises of the petitioner organisation or
taking any action to threaten, intimidate or annoyed those
associated with the work of the petitioner organisation. B
(c) That this Hon'ble Court may consider whether any
action should be taken against Dr. Dublish for threatening,
intimidating and annoying those working with the petitioner
organisation.
(d) That in the event, the Rajendra Singh is arrested during
c
the pendency of the petition, this Hon'ble Court should be
informed immediately of the reasons and circumstances for
doing so;
(e) That any action taken by or before any state authority in D
respect of the petitioner organisation or its Secretary,
Rajendra Singh, should be immediately reported and
brought to the attention of this Hon'ble Coi.;rt."
Under the orders passed earlier in this matter including the one dated
May l 0, 1993 referred to above, we have directed due protection to be E
extended to the office bearers of the petitioner organisation and in particular
to its Secretary, Shri Rajendra Singh. We have also recorded the
undertaking of Shri Ratan Katyani that he would not enter the premises of
the petitioner organisation or take any other offensive action against them.
He similarly wanted an assurance from the petitioner organisation that they
too shall not enter the premises of Shri Katyani's organisation, viz., F
Bandhua Mukti Morcha and shall not take any offensive action against that
organisation. So far as Dr. Dublish is concerned, we have recorded in our
order in I.A.No. 13 of 1993 pronounced today separately that he has
nothing to do with the petitioner- organisation since 4th April, 1993 and
that he is now settled at Jaipur. The orders are observations aforesaid are
affirmed herewith and on that basis I.A. No. 15 of 1993 is disposed of. G
A.G. Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal contempt"Sign in to search