Listen to this articleIn Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors.
In Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.2 of 2019 decided on September 3, 2020
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Aniruddha Bose JJ
Facts: The appellant filed this plea challenging the judgment dated 27.04.2020 in which the appellant and two others, were held guilty of contempt for making scandalous allegations against the judges of Supreme Court. After hearing the contemnors, SC found that there was no remorse or any semblance of apology shown by them. The three contemnors were sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In view of the Covid-19 pandemic, SC directed that the sentence shall come into force after sixteen weeks from 04.05.2020. The aggrieved appellant filed an application for recall of the order dated 04.05.2020.
Issue:
Whether the plea filed by the appellant challenging the decision of the Registrar to dismiss an application which sought recall of a contempt judgment is maintainable or not?
Held: The Supreme Court held that the application filed by appellant was not maintainable and was in fact an abuse of the process of law. The Court not only dismissed the appellant’s plea for recall but also imposed exemplary costs of Rs 25,000 on him. Furthermore, it was said that this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban (2000) 7 SCC 296 deprecated the practice of filing of applications for “clarification”, “modification” or “recall” of final judgments or orders and said that it cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure provided in the provision pertaining to Review and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open Court by filing an application for modification or recall. The Court also issued a warning that if he continues to misuse the process of law by filing such applications, he will face stricter consequences such as initiation of criminal contempt or a direction to the Registry to refuse any applications in his litigation.