Hari Singh Nagra & Ors vs Kapil Sibal & Ors

Hari Singh Nagra & Ors. ... Petitioners

Versus

Kapil Sibal & Ors. ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

J.M. Panchal, J.

1. The relevant facts, from which the present

contempt petition arises, are as under :

2. Mehfil-e-Wukala (`Mehfil' for short) is a cultural

and literally group / association of lawyers practicing in

the Supreme Court. The main object as claimed by the said

organization has been to promote art, culture and literature

amongst the members of the Bar. The said group of 22

lawyers also claims that Mehfil provides the members of

legal fraternity a chance to break away from the busy

schedule to pursue their talents in the fields of art, culture

and literature. The Mehfil was started in the year 1986 as a

small group of poets-advocates who used to sit periodically at

each other's place and recite poems etc. In the year 1992-93,

the members of the Mehfil decided to hold an annual function

and to invite more members of the Bar and also the Hon'ble

Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi to

participate in the activities of the Mehfil. It was also decided

to release a souvenir on the said occasion, which was to

contain brief account of the activities of the Mehfil, messages,

articles etc. to be contributed by the Hon'ble Judges and

senior members of the Bar. Accordingly, Annual Function

was held on February 6, 1993 at India International Centre,

New Delhi and a souvenir was published. Again on February

5, 1994, Annual Function was held which was attended by

the members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. On this

occasion also a souvenir was published which contained

various messages, articles, poems etc. contributed by the 22

members of the Bar and the Hon'ble Judges. For the year

1994-95, it was decided to hold the Annual Function on

March 25, 1995. As was done in the previous years, it was

decided to release a souvenir on the said occasion. The

function was held on the scheduled date and the souvenir

was published. It is claimed by Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, learned

counsel practicing in this Court in his affidavit in reply that

articles and messages were sent by the then Hon'ble Chief

Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy,

hon'ble Justice Dr. A.S. Anand, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P.

Bharucha, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate and the then

President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Hon'ble Mr.

Justice M.M. Punchhi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.L. Hansaria etc.

Mr. Kapil Sibal who is Senior Advocate also sent a message to

be published in the souvenir. In his message Mr. Sibal

expressed concern about the plight of junior members of the

Bar and also about falling standards of the legal fraternity.

The message was not released to the press nor the souvenir

was made available for sale but was circulated to its members

and other members of the Bar. Initially, the message sent by 22

Mr. Sibal did not invite any controversy whatsoever for about

a month. However, Mr. Sibal, the learned Senior Advocate,

decided to contest for the post of President of Supreme Court

Bar Association and filed his nomination. Thereafter, a news

item was published in the Sunday Times of India daily dated

April 16, 1995 wherein certain excerpts from the message

which was published in the souvenir of the Mehfil, were

reported which suggested that Mr. Sibal had made a frontal

attack on the judiciary.

3. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are practicing advocates at the

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. Their claim

was that Mr. Sibal who is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme

Court and was contender for the Presidentship of Supreme

Court Bar Association, had by sending a message which was

published in the souvenir of the Mehfil committed a criminal

contempt of the court. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 were of the

view that a real prejudice, which can be regarded as

substantial interference in the administration of justice was

caused because of the calculated and keenly studied attempt 22

by Mr. Sibal to denigrate the institution of judiciary. The

petitioner Nos.1 to 5 claimed that the remarks made by Mr.

Sibal against Hon'ble Judges amounted to an unignorable and

unpardonable mischief which had tendency to shake the faith

of the people of the country in the judiciary. What was

claimed by the petitioners was that Mr. Sibal had entered into

a conspiracy with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to bring the

administration of justice into disrespect which amounted to

deliberate interference in the administration of justice and as

he had imputed unsubstantiated charges of corruption against

the Judges, he was liable to be hauled up for contempt of

Court. Therefore, the petitioners instituted Criminal Contempt

Petition No.12 of 1995 in the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh. The said petition was filed under

Article 215 of the Constitution and prayer made was to punish

the respondents for committing contempt of the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Initially, the said petition

was placed for preliminary hearing before a learned Single

Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge was of the

view that what was alleged by the petitioners against the three 22

respondents impleaded therein was criminal contempt and,

therefore, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in

Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the petition

should be heard and decided by a Bench of not less than two

Judges. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, by an order

dated May 16, 1991 directed the Registry to place the papers

before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for listing the matter before a

Bench consisting of not less than two judges. Accordingly, the

matter was placed for preliminary hearing before a Division

Bench and the Bench issued show cause notice to the original

respondent Nos.1 to 3 stating that they were directed by the

Division Bench to implead the Editors, Printers and Publishers

of `Mehfil-e-Wukala'. The petitioners filed an application to

implead the respondent Nos.4 and 5 as respondents in the

contempt petition as they were editors of the Mehfil. The said

application was granted and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were

impleaded in the Contempt Petition. The respondent Nos.5

and 6 Secretaries of Mehfil-e-Wukala filed Transfer Petition

No.251 of 1996 in this Court and prayed to transfer the

Contempt Petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana 22

High Court at Chandigarh to this Court. After hearing the

learned counsel for the parties the said petition was allowed

and that is why the Registry has registered the case as

Transfer Case (Criminal) No.2 of 1997. On notice being

served, Mr. Sibal and other respondents have filed affidavit in

reply controverting the claims advanced by the petitioners.

4. The question posed for consideration of the Court is

whether sufficient case is made out by the petitioners to

initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. It may

be mentioned that after transfer of the case from Punjab and

Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to this Court, several

notices have been issued to the petitioners who are practicing

lawyers at the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,

Chandigarh. However, they have not responded to the notices

nor entered appearance through their learned advocate nor

thought it fit to assist the Court in the proceedings initiated by

them. However, it is well settled that contempt of Court is a

matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. The

matter is pending in this Court since the year 1997. 22

Therefore, this Court has decided to proceed with the hearing

of the matter, notwithstanding, the absence of the petitioners.

This Court has heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel

for the respondent No.1 and learned senior counsel Mr. Ranjit

Kumar appearing for the learned advocates at whose instance,

the contempt petition was transferred to this Court.

5. In order to decide the question posed for consideration of

this Court, it would be relevant to set out the Message/Article

contributed by the respondent No.1 in the souvenir of the

Mehfil :

"The public image of the legal community is at its nadir. Influx of large numbers into the profession, deterioration of moral standards of the legal community questionable integrity of some of those who are in judiciary and the sheer economic cost of starting as a professional and sustaining one self have contributed to these falling standards.

The judiciary, despite the above, provides a glimmer of hope for the common man. Those who adorn this institution, though tainted, have not yet lost all credibility. We have to all unite together to refurbish the image of the legal fraternity. Before we point fingers at others, let us do some soul-searching.

22 For a start, let us concentrate on the junior members of the Bar. Our senior colleagues owe it to the profession to bring up the Junior Bar. This can never be done until junior members of the Bar have access to the chambers of senior lawyers. We must devise what I may call Voluntary Access Scheme : in terms of which the Supreme Court Bar Association should rotate junior members of the bar amongst the chambers of Senior Lawyers who voluntarily want to participate in this scheme. Access should be provided to at least one, if not two, junior members of the bar to each senior on the basis of rotation for 6 months at a time. This will give to the junior members the advantage of having worked with a variety of seniors. Of course, a minimum payment schedule must be part of this scheme.

We must draw up a Code of Conduct applicable to the members of the Bar which will lay down norms not only in relation to their conduct with each other but also with reference to their conduct qua the Bench. Lawyers must refrain from shouting at each other, speaking in anger, threatening judges, threatening colleagues and the like. It is also necessary that procedures must be devised to ensure adherence to these norms.

Entry into the profession should be limited to only those who pass an examination which may be conducted by the Bar Council of India. This, of course, 22

requires legislation. Lawyers must get together, apply their mind to this issue and ensure the passing of this legislation.

It seems that judges have started disciplining lawyers. Judges themselves need disciplining. The judiciary has failed in its efforts to eradicate the phenomenon of corruption. This phenomenon includes receiving monetary benefits for judicial pronouncements rendering blatantly dishonest judgments, kow-towing with political personalities and obviously favouring the Government and thereby losing all sense of objectivity. The legal community instead of publically denigrading judicial system should come forward with proposed legislation to deal with this issue. A committee must be set up by the Supreme Court Bar Association to look into the modalities of bringing about such legislation in the context of the present constitutional frame-work which provides complete protection to the judiciary.

The issue of legal education must be addressed by the legal fraternity in cooperation with institutions providing legal education in India. Funding should be provided for studies to be conducted in such aspects of the law as required urgent attention.

There must be greater interaction between the various Bar Associations in the country. Constant interaction will lead to exchange of information which, in turn, will enable all of us to attend 22

urgently to the needs of the members of the legal profession.

These are thoughts which require both immediate attention and a well thought of strategy. If we pause for a moment and think about what I have said, at least we will have made a start."

6. It may be stated that the Times of India, Delhi dated April

16, 1995 in the issue of Sunday Times published excerpts

from the above quoted message sent by Mr. Sibal and title it as

Sibal's Remark Stir Row in Legal Circles.

7. A fair analysis of the message sent by Mr. Sibal makes it

clear that he was concerned with the public image of the legal

community which according to him was at its nadir. He was

of the view that influx of large numbers into the profession,

deterioration of moral standards of the legal community,

questionable integrity of some of those who were in judiciary

and the sheer economic cost of starting as a professional and

sustaining one self had contributed to these falling standards.

He expressed his firm opinion that judiciary despite the above,

provided a glimmer of hope for the common man and though 22

there were tainted Judges, the institution had not yet lost all

credibility. He called upon all concerned to unite together to

refurbish the image of the legal fraternity. In order to make

out his point Mr. Sibal first of all concentrated on the plight of

junior members of the Bar. After emphasizing that senior

colleagues owe it to the profession to bring up the Junior Bar

and that the junior members of the bar must have access to

the chambers of the Senior Lawyers, he appealed to the

members of the Bar to devise a Voluntary Access Scheme in

terms of which the Supreme Court Bar Association would

rotate junior members of the Bar amongst the chambers of

Senior Lawyers who voluntarily want to participate in the

Scheme. Mr. Sibal was of the view that access should be

provided to at least one if not two junior members of the bar to

each senior on the basis of rotation for at least six months

which according to him was likely to give the junior members

the advantage of having worked with a variety of seniors. He

also emphasized that a minimum payment schedule to the

junior members of the Bar must be part of this Scheme. He

called upon those concerned to draw up a Code of Conduct 22

applicable to the members of the bar which would lay down

norms not only in relation to their conduct with each other but

also with reference to their conduct qua the Bench. He was of

the opinion that lawyers must refrain from shouting at each

other, speaking in anger, threatening Judges, threatening

colleagues and the like and expressed his strong feeling by

stating that procedures must be devised to ensure adherence

to these norms. He was of the further opinion that entry into

the profession should be limited to those who passed an

examination which should be conducted by the Bar Council of

India. Having addressed to the drawbacks then prevailing in

the legal profession, he proceeded to discuss the malaise

affecting the judiciary. Having practiced in the Supreme Court

for a pretty long time, he perceived that Judges had started

disciplining lawyers. He, therefore, mentioned that Judges

themselves needed to be disciplined. In his Message, he noted

with pain that judiciary had failed in its efforts to eradicate the

phenomenon of corruption which included receiving monetary

benefits for judicial pronouncements, rendering blantantly

dishonest, judgments, kow-towing with political personalities 22

and favouring the Government and thereby losing sense of

objectivity. Mr. Sibal had noticed that legal community was

assailing and belittling the judicial system publically, which

was harmful. He, therefore, urged the legal community to

desist from criticizing the judicial system publically and asked

them to come forward with proposed legislation to deal with

this issue and advised a Committee to be set up by the

Supreme Court Bar Association to look into the modalities of

bringing about such legislation in the context of then prevalent

constitutional framework which according to him provided

complete protection to the judiciary. He also emphasized in

his message the necessity of legal education by the legal

fraternity in cooperation with institutions providing legal

education in India and expressed a point of view that funding

should be provided for studies to be conducted in such

aspects of the law as required urgent attention. Mr. Sibal

further stressed necessity of having greater interaction

between the various Bar Associations in the country to

exchange information which in turn would enable all

concerned to attend urgently to the needs of the members of 22

the legal profession.

As mentioned earlier, only a part of message was

published in the newspaper wherein sentences were torn out

of context and an impression was given that Mr. Sibal had

made a frontal attack on the judiciary. A fair reading of the

message quoted above makes it explicit that the sending

and/or publication of the message in the Mehfil did not

scandalize or tend to scandalize, or lower or tend to lower the

authority of any court nor prejudiced, or interfered or tended

to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or

interfered or tended to interfere with or obstructed or tended

to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner,

within the meaning of `criminal contempt' as defined in

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Having

regard to the contours of the issue involved, this Court feels

that it would be essential to recall to the memory the weighty

observations made by His Lordship Sabyasachi Mukherji in

P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 167.

Therein, Mr. P. Shiv Shankar who at the relevant time was the 22

Hon'ble Minister for Law, Justice and Company Affairs had

delivered a speech before a meeting of the Bar Council of

Hyderabad. Mr. P.N. Duda, an advocate practicing in

Supreme Court had drawn attention of the Court to that

speech. According to Mr. Duda, the speech of Mr. P. Shiv

Shankar contained statements which were derogatory to the

dignity of this Court as it attributed partiality towards

economically affluent sections of the people, by this Court.

Mr. Duda was of the view that language used in the

statements was extremely intemperate, undignified and

unbecoming of a person of Mr. Shiv Shankar's stature and

position. Mr. Duda, therefore, urged the Court to initiate

contempt proceedings against Mr. P. Shiv Shankar. The Court

went through the entire speech and also noticed the

newspaper version of the said speech. This Court took into

consideration the suggestion made by Lord Atkin in Ambard

vs. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago 1936 AC 322,

E.M. Shankaran Namboodiripad vs. T. Narayanan Nambiar

(1970) 2 SCC 325 and made following apt observations in

paragraphs 12 and 13 of the reported decision : 22

"12. The question of contempt of court by newspaper article criticising the Judges of the Court came up for consideration in the case of Re: Shri S. Mulgaokar. In order to appreciate the controversy in this case it has to be stated that the issue dated 13th December, 1977, of the Indian Express published a news item that the High Courts had reacted very strongly to the suggestion of introducing a code of judicial ethics and propriety and that "an adverse has been the criticism that the Supreme Court Judges, some of whom had prepared the draft code, have disowned it". In its issue dated December 21, 1977 an article entitled "behaving like a Judge" was published which inter alia stated that the Supreme Court of India was "packed" by Mrs. Indira Gandhi "with pliant and submissive judges except for a few". It was further stated that the suggestion that a code of ethics should be formulated by Judges themselves was "so utterly inimical to the independence of the judiciary, violative of the Constitutional safeguards in that respect and offensive to the self-respect of the Judges as to make one wonder how it was conceived in the first place". A notice had been issued to the Editor-in-Chief of the Newspaper to show-cause why proceedings for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should not be initiated against him in respect of the above two news items.

13. It was observed by Chief Justice Beg in that decision that national interest required that all criticisms of the 22

judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. This should be a part of national ethics. The comments about Judges of the Supreme Court suggesting that they lack moral courage to the extent of having "disowned" what they had done or in other words, to the extent of uttering what was untrue, at least verge on contempt. None could say that such suggestions would not make Judges of this Court look ridiculous or even unworthy, in the estimation of the public, of the very high office they hold if they could so easily "disown" what they had done after having really done it. It was reiterated that the judiciary can not be immune from criticism. But, when that criticism was based on obvious distortion or gross misstatement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for the judiciary and destroy public confidence in it, it could not be ignored. A decision on the question whether the discretion to take action for Contempt of Court should be exercised must depend on the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. The Chief Justice agreed with the other two learned Judges in that decision that in those facts the proceedings should be dropped. Krishna Iyer, J. in his judgment observed that the Court should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardised by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the Judges, where the attack was calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The Court must 22

harmonise the constitutional values of free criticism, and the need for a fearless curial process and its presiding functionary, the judge. To criticise a judge fairly albeit fiercely, is no crime but a necessary right. Where freedom of expression subserves public interest in reasonable measure, public justice cannot gag it or manacle it. The Court must avoid confusion between personal protection of a libelled judge and prevention of obstruction of public justice and the community's confidence in that great process. The former is not contempt but latter is, although overlapping spaces abound. The fourth functional canon is that the Fourth Estate should be given free play within responsible limits even when the focus of its critical attention is the court, including the highest court. The fifth normative guideline for the Judges to observe is not to be hypersensitive even where distortions and criticisms overstep the limits, but to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, and the sixth consideration is that if the Court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its sources and stream."

8. There is no manner of doubt that Judges are accountable

to the society and their accountability must be judged by their 22

conscience and oath of their office. Any criticism about the

judicial system or the judges which hampers the

administration of justice or brings administration of justice

into ridicule must be prevented. The contempt of court

proceedings arise out of that attempt. National interest

requires that all criticisms of the judiciary must be strictly

rational and sober and proceed from the highest motives

without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics. There

is no manner of doubt that freedom of expression as

contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is available

to the Press and to criticize a judgment fairly albeit fiercely is

no crime but a necessary right. A fair and reasonable

criticism of a judgment which is a public document or which is

a public act of a Judge concerned with administration of

justice would not constitute contempt. In fact, such fair and

reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no

one, much less Judges, can claim infallibility. The Message

examined the evils prevailing in the judicial system and was

written with an object to achieve maintenance of purity in the

administration of justice. The message was exposition of Mr. 22

Sibal's ideology and he had shown the corrective measures to

be adopted to get the institution rid of the shortcomings

mentioned by him. On the facts of the case, the message sent

by Mr. Sibal to be published in the souvenir of the Mehfil will

have to be regarded as fair criticism of his senior colleagues for

their failure to bring up the Junior Bar and of those members

of the Bar who were shouting at each other and threatening

the Judges. The message is nothing but concerns of a senior

advocate who has practiced long in this Court who noticed

that the public image of the legal community was its nadir.

The article nowhere targets a particular judge. This is not a

case of an attack on a Judge which is scurrilous, offensive,

intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, in respect

of a judgment or his conduct. The article is an expression of

opinion about an institutional pattern. The article by itself

does not affect the administration of justice. Here, it would

not be out of place to refer to certain reported decisions

dealing with the question as to when a publication can be

regarded as scandalizing the Court or tending to interfere with

the administration of justice or lowering the authority of 22

Court. Scandalising in substance is an attack on individual

Judges or the Court as a whole with or without referring to

particular cases casting unwarranted and defamatory

aspersions upon the character or the ability of the Judges.

`Scandalising the Court' is a convenient way of describing a

publication which, although it does not relate to any specific

case either post or pending or any specific Judge, is a

scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole which is

calculated to undermine the authority of the Courts and

public confidence in the administration of justice.

9. In re: Sham Lal AIR 1978 SC 489, a news item referring

to a signed document describing one of the views expressed in

the Habeas Corpus case, i.e., ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant

Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521 as `misdeed' and Judges who gave

such decision would be `ostracized' in other countries

appeared in newspaper Times of India. This Court was called

upon to initiate contempt proceedings. The Court took the

view that this was not a fit case for drawing up formal

contempt proceedings and dropped the proceedings. In 22 Vishwanath vs. E.S. Venkataramaih 1990 Cri.L.J. 2179 (Bom),

Mr. E.s. Venkataramaiah, former Chief Justice of India, gave

an interview to a noted journalist Kuldeep Nair at the eve of

his retirement on 17.12.1989 which was published in several

newspapers. In course of interview, the former Chief Justice is

stated to have made the following statements : "The judiciary

in India has deteriorated in its standards because such judges

are appointed as are willing to be influenced by lavish

parties & Whisky Bottles." In every High Court, Justice

Venkataramaiha said, there are at least 4 to 5 judges who are

practically out every evening, wining and dining either at a

lawyer's house or foreign embassy. He estimates the number

of such judges around 90 and favours transferring them to

other High Courts.

Chief Justice Venkataramaiha reiterated that close

relations of Judges be debarred from practicing in the same

High Courts. He expressed himself strongly against sons-in-

law and brothers of Judges appearing in the Courts where the

latter are on the Bench. Most relations of Judges are 22

practicing in High Courts of Allahabad, Chandigarh, Delhi and

Patna.

According to C.J. Venkataramaiha practically in all the

22 High Courts in the country close relations of Judges are

thriving. There are allegations that certain judgments have

been influenced through them even though they have not been

directly engaged as lawyers in such case. It is hard to believe

the reports that every brother, son or son-in-law of a judge

whatever his merit or lack of it as lawyer can be sure of

earning an income of more than Rs.10,000/- a month.

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the

words complained of did not amount to Contempt of Court on

the grounds that (1) the entire interview appears to have been

given with the idea to improve the judiciary; (2) the Supreme

Court had dismissed the Writ Petition (C) No.126 of 1990 filed

on behalf of State Legal Aid Committee, J & K for an

appropriate writ commanding the Union of India or any other

appropriate authority to disclose the names of 90 judges as

mentioned by the former Chief Justice of India. 22

10. In Bramhaprakash Sharma vs. State of UP AIR 1954 SC

10, Resolution of the Executive Committee of the District Bar

Association of the Muzzafarnagar to the effect that two judicial

officers were thoroughly incompetent and to not inspire

confidence and are given to stating wrong facts, was

considered overbearing and discourteous but no action was

taken against the members of the Bar.

11. Bearing in mind the trends in the law of contempt as

noticed by this Court in P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shankar

(supra), the message contributed by Mr. Sibal, read in its

proper prospective, did not bring the administration of justice

into disrepute or impair. Therefore, it must be held that no

criminal contempt was committed or attempted to be

committed by the respondent No.1.

12. On behalf of the Times of India, written statement has

been filed by Mr. Rakesh Bhatnagar. In the reply, the

contempt petition is sought to be defended on merits but it is

mentioned that there was no deliberate or intentional attempt

on the part of the answering respondent to lower the prestige 22

of the Hon'ble Court. By filing the reply the newspaper has

tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, if the Court

comes to the conclusion that contempt of court was committed

by the respondent No.3. However, it will not be out of place to

mention that the article which appeared in the Times of India

was torn out of text. If the full text of the message sent by Mr.

Sibal had been published in the newspaper, in all probabilities

the petitioners were not likely to initiate proceedings for

criminal contempt of the Court against the respondents.

However, in view of the unconditional apology tendered, it is

not necessary for this Court to delve into details about the

conduct of the respondent No.3 any further. There is nothing

on the record to show that the souvenir of the Mehfil in which

the message was printed was sold to the public. This was a

kind of internal pamphlet/brochure which was distributed to

its members. Therefore, no case is made out against

respondent Nos.4 and 5 who were subsequently impleaded in

the petition.

22

13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case where a formal

proceedings for contempt should be drawn up and, therefore,

notices issued to them will have to be discharged and the

petition will have to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the contempt proceedings are

dropped. The notices issued to the respondents are

discharged and the petition is dismissed.

...................................J. (J.M. Panchal)

...................................J. (A.K. Patnaik) New Delhi;

July 15, 2010