Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 556 (KER)

Baisil Attipetty v. Jayarajan

2010-07-21

J.CHELAMESWAR, P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2010
Judgment : J. Chelameswar, C.J. The above unnumbered Writ Petitions filed by Adv. Sri. K.P. Ramachandran and Adv. Sri. A.G. Baisil are placed before us pursuant to the notes of the office on 28.6.2010 and 12.7.2010 respectively. The prayers in the Writ Petition filed by Adv. Sri. K.P. Ramachandran is as follows:- i) to take the Contempt of Court proceedings against the 1st respondent on the Statement made by him on 26.6.2010 against the integrity of two Judges of the Honourable Kerala High Court and thereby against the Honourable Court, and may be pleased to take appropriate Contempt of Court action by issuing a Notice to the contemnor to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt shall not be initiated against the 1st respondent on this Writ Petition. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.4 and 5 to investigate into the matter and charge appropriate criminal case against the 1st respondent under appropriate provisions of laws in the land. iii) Grant such other reliefs as prayed by this Writ Petitioner from time to time and this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” The prayers in the Writ Petition, filed by Adv. Sri. A.G. Baisil is as follows:- i) Take contempt of Court Proceedings against the 1st respondent on the statements made by him on 26.06.2010 against the Integrity of two Judges of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and thereby against the Hon’ble Court; ii) Take appropriate Contempt of Court action by issuing show cause notice to the 1st respondent, as to why proceedings for contempt shall not be initiated against him under this Writ Petition; iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ(s), Order(s) or Directions (s), directing the Respondents 2 to 5 to investigate into the matter and charge appropriate criminal case against the 1st Respondent under appropriate laws of the land; iv) To grant such other appropriate reliefs to the Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The respondents in the said Writ Petitions are ten in number. When the papers in the said unnumbered Writ Petitions were presented to the Registry, Registry raised certain doubts regarding the maintainability of such Writ Petitions and therefore, listed those matters for appropriate orders. 3. 2. The respondents in the said Writ Petitions are ten in number. When the papers in the said unnumbered Writ Petitions were presented to the Registry, Registry raised certain doubts regarding the maintainability of such Writ Petitions and therefore, listed those matters for appropriate orders. 3. The background to which the Writ Petitions came to be filed is that the first respondent is alleged to have made certain comments against this Court and the Judges’ of this Court in a public meeting held on 26.6.2010. The writ petitioners who are the practicing lawyers are of the opinion that the comments allegedly made by the first respondent are highly contemptuous. Petitioners also stated that by the attacks such as the one attributed to the first respondent, “the ultimate victim is the judicial institution, the day consumers of justice loose faith in the institution that would be the darkest day of mankind.” 4. The allegations attributed to first respondent, if proved, may or may not constitute an act of Criminal Contempt. We do not propose to examine the same at this stage. But for the present we presume that such comments are likely to come within the description of a criminal contempt. Even then, the question still remains as to whether the prayers such as the one sought for in these Writ Petitions can be granted by this Court. In so far as the first prayer is concerned, the petitioners seek a direction to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the first respondent. Assuming for the sake of argument, if such a prayer is to be allowed, none of the respondents in the writ petition would be competent to take any action against the first respondent. Under S.15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, such a proceeding for criminal contempt can be initiated either by the Advocate General or some other person with the consent of the Advocate General or by the Court suo motu. 5. Coming to the second prayer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could not point out to any specific provision of law constituting the offence, which according to the petitioners, is required to be investigated. 6. In such circumstances, the Writ Petitions, in so far as it pertains to the first prayer sought by the petitioners, are not maintainable. With regard to the second prayer, the prayer is too vague and imprecise. 7. 6. In such circumstances, the Writ Petitions, in so far as it pertains to the first prayer sought by the petitioners, are not maintainable. With regard to the second prayer, the prayer is too vague and imprecise. 7. Strictly speaking, the Writ Petitions could not be rejected without being numbered on the ground that the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petitions are vague and imprecise, such a decision is to be taken on the judicial side, after the Writ Petitions are numbered. In the background of the above mentioned facts, we do not see any useful purpose in directing the Registry to number the Writ Petitions. Accordingly, we uphold the objections made by the Registry and close the matter in the above mentioned Writ Petitions.