TEHSEEN POONAWALLAversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

204                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    12 S.C.R. 204              [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A                        TEHSEEN POONAWALLA
                                       v.
                         UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                            (MA No.1607 of 2018)
B                                      In
                        (IA Nos.14870-14871 of 2018)
                                       In
                       (Writ Petition (C) No.19 of 2018)
C
                            SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
      AND IN THE MATTER OF :
      ADMIRAL MR. LAXMINARAYAN RAMDAS (RETD.)

D     AND IN THE MATTER OF :
      MS. INDIRA JAISING

             [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                       DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
E
             Practice and Procedure – Judgment pronounced in Tehseen
      Poonawalla versus Union of India and Anr. [W.P. (C) No. 19 of
      2018] on 19th April 2018 as reported in [2018] 9 SCR 1 – Remarks
      purportedly made by Supreme Court that the conduct of the counsel
      for the petitioners and intervenors therein prima facie constituted
F     contempt of court – Miscellaneous application filed for expunging/
      deleting the said remarks as against the present applicant/counsel,
      who appeared for one of the intervenor therein – Held: Paragraph
      75 of the judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla case records the submission
      which was urged by the applicant namely, that contempt notices
      should be issued to the Administrative Committee of the High Court
G
      – The fact that such a submission was made is not in dispute – In
      fact, the said submission has also been repeated in the present
      application, as originally filed – Further, present application
      proceeds on the basis that the observations which were made in
      regard to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors attach to
H
                                    204
    TEHSEEN POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                               205


the applicant personally – If the applicant identifies with the               A
intervenor, that is a matter of perception for applicant/counsel –
Findings of Supreme Court were based on what was argued during
the course of the hearing – Miscellaneous Application accordingly
disposed of.
       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : M. A. No. 1607 of 2018                   B
in I.A. Nos. 14870-14871 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.19 of 2018.
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
      Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Sunil
Fernandes, Ms. Astha Sharma, Amit Bhandari, Ms. Nupur Kumar,
Ms. Anju Thomas, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Paras Nath Singh, Nishant              C
R. Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Order of the Court was passed by
        DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Ms Indira
Jaising has moved a Miscellaneous Application seeking the following           D
reliefs :
      “a) Issue appropriate order or direction expunging/deleting the
      remarks made against the counsel for present intervenor/applicant
      herein that the conduct of the counsel/applicant herein amounted
      to contempt or prima facie contempt of court, namely the                E
      following :
      “74. The present case is indeed a case in point. Repeatedly, counsel
      for the petitioners and intervenors have attempted to inform the
      court that they have no personal agenda and that they have instituted
      these proceedings to protect judicial independence. An aura of          F
      good faith has been sought to be created by submitting that the
      true purpose of seeking an inquiry into the circumstances relating
      to the death of Judge Loya is to protect the district judiciary(…)”
      “75.[…] Ms Jaising has joined the fray by requesting that this
      court to issue contempt notices to the Administrative Committee         G
      of the Bombay High Court…”
      “76. […] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors
      scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes
      criminal contempt…”
                                                                              H
206            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           “78. [...] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors is, as
            we have indicated, lacking in bona fides and reveals a misuse of
            judicial process.”
            b) Issue appropriate order or direction issuing a clarification that
            the counsel for the present intervener/applicant herein has not
B           furthered any submissions or engaged in conduct which may
            amount to contempt of Court if it so deems fit;
            c) Call for High Court of Bombay for the records of the meeting
            of administrative committee of the High Court dated 25.06.2014
            to ascertain the reasons for transfer to Judge Utpat, and to
C           ascertain whether the consent of this Hon’ble Court was obtained
            or whether this Hon’ble Court was kept informed that Judge Utpat
            was being transferred;”
             In the batch of cases which was adjudicated upon in the judgment
      of this Court dated 19 April 2018 Ms Jaising represented an intervenor
D     (Admiral Ramdas).
             2. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of the applicant
      submitted that whatever be the conduct of the other learned counsel
      who appeared on behalf of the petitioners and intervenors before this
      Court, Ms Jaising has had no intention to make any submission that
E     would denigrate or scandalise the judiciary. It was urged that in making
      the submission about the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High
      Court she has not scandalised the judiciary and that neither the written
      submissions nor the oral submissions would amount to scandalising the
      process of the Court. Dr Singhvi urged that the observations contained
      in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 78 of the judgment (extracted in prayer
F     clause (a) above) would appear to give the impression that all counsel
      before the Court had made the same submission, though each of the
      arguing counsel had urged distinct submissions. It has been submitted
      that Ms Jaising has a standing of over five decades at the Bar and that
      her track record would indicate anything but a desire to denigrate the
G     judiciary.
             3. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
      of the State of Maharashtra opposed the application. Learned counsel
      submitted that each one of the submissions attributed to Ms Jaising was
      in fact urged by her in the course of the proceedings. Mr Rohatgi drew
      the attention of the Court to prayer clause (c) of the Miscellaneous
H
    TEHSEEN POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                 207
             [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Application by which the records of the meeting of the Administrative           A
Committee of the High Court dated 25 June 2014 are sought to be
summoned to ascertain the reasons for the transfer of Judge Utpat, and
to ascertain whether the consent of this Court was obtained (and whether
it was kept informed of his proposed transfer). Mr Rohatgi submitted
that prayer (c) is indicative of the fact that the Miscellaneous Application
                                                                                B
has not been filed to pursue her own interest as counsel practicing before
this Court but to revive the controversy which has been settled by the
judgment of this Court.
       4. Faced with the objection raised by Mr Rohatgi in regard to
prayer clause (c) of the application, Dr Singhvi submitted in the course
of his rejoinder that the prayer is being given up. It would be necessary       C
to record Mr Rohatgi’s submission that if, as submitted by Dr Singhvi,
the inclusion of prayer clause (c) was inadvertent, the statement that the
prayer is being given up ought to have been made before submissions
commenced, prior to an objection being raised on his behalf.
      5. The first aspect of the matter which needs to be noted is that         D
paragraph 75 of the judgment records the submission which was urged
by the applicant namely, that contempt notices should be issued to the
Administrative Committee of the High Court. That such a submission
was made is not in dispute. In fact in paragraph 9.3 of the Miscellaneous
Application, the applicant has repeated the submission, reiterating that it     E
was urged before this Court. Prayer clause (c) of the application as it
was originally filed was based on that submission.
       6. The application proceeds on the basis that the observations
which were made in regard to the conduct of the petitioners and
intervenors attach to the applicant personally. In paragraphs 76 and            F
78, this Court has adverted to “the conduct of the petitioners and
the intervenors” (emphasis supplied). If the applicant identifies with
the intervenor, that is a matter of perception for counsel. The observations
of the Court advert to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors.
The findings of this Court are based on what was argued during the
course of the hearing.                                                          G
      7. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.


Divya Pandey                                                  MA disposed of.

                                                                                H