ORDER : Altamas Kabir, J. This unnumbered application has been filed in WP (Crl.) No. D 24281 of 2008 asking this Bench to recuse itself from the present case Despite being given an opportunity to place the application which has been filed by Ms. Annette Kotian, in one of the writ petitions, she not only refused to do so, but also refused to abide by the norms and decorum to be maintained inside a courtroom and, in particular, in the Supreme Court. Despite being repeatedly told to mind her language and aggressive behaviour, she continued her tirade and asserted that she would continue to use such indecorous, indecent, slanderous, and offensive language as it was her fundamental right to protect herself under Article 21 of the Constitution. She also asserted that she was exercising her fundamental right to free speech, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. Ms. Annette Kotian's submissions were endorsed by Dr. Sarita Parikh with equal vehemence. 2. We have heard the learned Attorney General and the learned Solicitor General on this application. We see no reason to allow the prayer made in the application and the same is, therefore, rejected. 3. As far as the contempt matter is concerned, on 16-7-2009, Leila David v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 349 , we had given an opportunity to the alleged contemnors to make their submissions in the matter. However, in view of the fact that the contemnors were insisting on addressing the Court on alleged violation of their fundamental rights, which had already been urged earlier during the hearing of the writ petitions, we had to request the learned Attorney General as well as the learned Solicitor General and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association to address us in regard to the orders which had been passed on 20-3-2009, Leila David v. State of Maharashtra. (2009) 4 SCC 578 , on account whereof the matters were referred to the Special Bench. On that date, certain judgments were referred to by the learned Attorney General and since the alleged contemnors, who are appearing in person, wanted time to consider the decisions, we had adjourned the contempt matter till today to enable them to make submissions with regard to the same. 4. Today, however, when the contempt matter was taken up Ms. On that date, certain judgments were referred to by the learned Attorney General and since the alleged contemnors, who are appearing in person, wanted time to consider the decisions, we had adjourned the contempt matter till today to enable them to make submissions with regard to the same. 4. Today, however, when the contempt matter was taken up Ms. Annette Kotian contended that since all orders which have been passed by this Court violate the fundamental rights of the contemnors, there was no need for any further submissions to be made in the contempt matter. However, submissions have been made by Dr. Sarita Parikh, one of the alleged contemnors, to the effect that the footwear had been thrown by her only to make the learned Judges sitting on the Bench aware of her constitutional and fundamental rights, which according to her had been violated. She also tried to justify her conduct by claiming that she had a fundamental right to use all means at her disposal to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, even if it included vilification and scandalisation not only of the judicial system, but other constitutional functionaries as well. 5. Submissions were also made by Ms. Leila David, one of the other writ petitioner contemnors, contending that she was not responsible for the throwing of the footwear and that she should not have been included in the order by which the contemnors were found guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced to imprisonment. 6. Apart from the above, a fresh writ petition has been filed by Dr. Santa Parikh, Ms. Annette Kotian and Ms. Leila David. It may be mentioned that the second and third petitioners had filed writ petitions earlier in respect whereof arguments have already been heard. The very form of the writ petition, the language used and the prayers made therein, besides being highly objectionable, offensive, and scandalous, also amounts to abuse of the process of court. This kind of writ petition, purportedly made in furtherance of the fundamental right of freedom of speech, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, is nothing but an attempt to denigrate and vilify not only the judiciary and the legal system, but also other constitutional authorities of this country. This kind of writ petition, purportedly made in furtherance of the fundamental right of freedom of speech, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, is nothing but an attempt to denigrate and vilify not only the judiciary and the legal system, but also other constitutional authorities of this country. Even the offices of the President, the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, apart from various Judges, both of the High Court and this Court, have not been spared the vitriol which has poured from the pens of the writ petitioners who have no regret for their actions. On the other hand, they have continuously adopted an abnormally aggressive posture. In future, these kinds of writ petitions should not be entertained by the Registry. However, since the same has been entertained in view of the order passed by us on 5-5-2009, it should be rejected at the very initial stage. 7. Liberty to file a petition or application has been taken by the writ petitioners, who profess to be teachers, to be a licence to scandalise the judiciary and the other high constitutional functionaries. It is difficult to understand the thought process for such unusual behaviour and/or the contents of the writ petitions, but, in any event, such kind of acts are unacceptable and must be censured and discouraged The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 8. However, while dismissing the writ petition, having regard to the intemperate and obnoxious language used in the writ petition showing scant regard to the Court and the offices of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Attorney General, we have no option but to issue yet another rule of contempt against the three writ petitioners. The contemnors are directed to show cause by 21-10-2009 as to why they should not be committed to prison or otherwise suitably dealt with for their contumacious conduct in filing the writ petition for the purpose of scandalising the Court and high constitutional functionaries. 9. As far as the earlier writ petitions are concerned, the same, along with the contempt matters, will also be listed "for orders" on 21-10-2009 at 2 p.m. All the alleged contemnors, namely, Ms. Annette Kotian, Dr. Santa Parikh, Mrs. Leila David and Ms. Pavithra Murali are directed to be present in person on the date in the courtroom at 2 p.m.