Supreme Court Bar Association And Others v. State Of U.P And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(Record of Proceedings),W.P (C) No. 553 of 1994 with T.P (C) No. of 1994, decided on September 15, 1994

Disposition

Attorney(S)

K.K Venugopal, Senior Advocate (K.B Rohtagi, Pramod Swarup, Mukul Mudgal, R. Ramachandran and R.P Wadhwani, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants;
Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocate (P.H Parekh and Ms Prerna Kohli, Advocates, with him) for the Intervenor.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Advocate General and Ashok Desai, Senior Advocate (Ashok K. Srivastava and A.S Pundir, Advocates, with them) for the State of U.P
M.K Banerjee, Attorney General, D.P Gupta, Solicitor General and P. Parameswaran, Advocate, for the Union of India.

Judges

Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah
Justice J.S. Verma
Justice A.M. Ahmadi

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners sought transfer to the Supreme Court of contempt proceedings pending before the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches of the High Court of Allahabad. Simultaneously, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 533 of 1994, events surrounding an incident that occurred on 13-9-1994 within the High Court’s premises were brought before the Supreme Court. The Court:

Issued notice to the respondents (who were the petitioners in the High Court proceedings) and stayed all further contempt proceedings related to the same incident before either Bench of the High Court.
Allowed the Bar Association of India to intervene and heard submissions from the Supreme Court Bar Association, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Attorney-General for India.
Recorded the letters/report sent on 13-9-1994 by the Chief Justice and the High Court itself describing the incident.
Directed an independent investigation by the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Shri Vijay Rama Rao, acting as a Commissioner of the Court, to inquire into the events of 12-9-1994 and 13-9-1994.
Fixed 22-9-1994 as the next date of hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Supreme Court should withdraw and consolidate the pending contempt proceedings from the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches of the High Court.
Whether an independent and impartial inquiry, to be conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court, was required to investigate the incidents at the High Court on 13-9-1994 (and related background events on 12-9-1994).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that effective adjudication of the writ petition and the pending contempt matters required a prompt, independent, and credible fact-finding process. Relying on its inherent powers to ensure the proper administration of justice, it determined that:

An impartial investigation by the Director of CBI, acting as a Court-appointed Commissioner, would bring all relevant facts before the Court expeditiously.
Staying the High Court contempt proceedings would prevent multiplicity of proceedings and possible interference with the fact-finding mission.
Full cooperation from the State of Uttar Pradesh and the High Court Registry was essential; their representatives in Court expressly assured such cooperation.
The materials already on record—the Chief Justice’s letter and the High Court’s report—were formally admitted as part of the case file, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: All contempt proceedings concerning the incident of 13-9-1994 pending before the Allahabad and Lucknow Benches are stayed; the Director, CBI (Shri Vijay Rama Rao) is appointed Commissioner of the Supreme Court to investigate the events of 12-9-1994 and 13-9-1994 and report within seven days; the matter is listed on 22-9-1994; the Bar Association of India is permitted to intervene.

Implications: The order centralizes control of related contempt matters in the Supreme Court and secures an independent factual inquiry, ensuring transparency and preventing local interference. The directive affects only the immediate proceedings and does not set a new legal precedent.

Show full summary ...

Supreme Court Bar Association And Others v. State Of U.P And Others

Order

Transfer Petition (C) No. … of 1994

1. By this petition the petitioners pray that certain pending proceedings similar to present petition initiated both in Allahabad and Lucknow Benches of the High Court, be withdrawn to this Court.

2. Issue notice to the respondents who were petitioners in the respective proceedings before the High Court. In the meanwhile all further contempt proceedings in respect of the same incident now pending in Allahabad and Lucknow Benches of the High Court shall remain stayed. List after service of notice.

WP (C) No. 533 of 1994

3. Heard Shri K.K Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate for the Supreme Court Bar Association, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Association of India which seeks to intervene. We grant the prayer and permit the Bar Association of India to intervene and assist the Court. We have heard Shri Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers. Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Advocate General for the State of U.P is present in Court. We have also heard learned Attorney General for Union of India.

4. Affidavits have been filed by the Chief Secretary, State of U.P, Director General of Police, State of U.P and the Home Secretary on behalf of the State of U.P

5. It appears to us that before further steps are initiated on the prayers made in the writ petition, it is necessary to have a prompt investigation and inquiry into the happenings at premises of the High Court of Allahabad on 13-9-1994. We place on record the letter of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the report of the High Court made to this Court, both received on 13-9-1994. They shall form part of the record. Copies of this shall be furnished to Shri Ashok Desai.

6. We thought — and put to Shri Desai — whether it would not be appropriate to have an independent and impartial enquiry and investigation into the events by the Director of CBI who in respect of the conduct of the inquiry shall act as a Commissioner of this Court. Mr Ashok Desai, in all fairness, stated that this is an appropriate course and all the facts would be before this Court in the form of the report of the Director.

7. We accordingly direct Shri Vijay Rama Rao, Director, CBI to inquire into and investigate into the events that occurred on 13-9-1994 at the High Court which led to the incidents referred to by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court in his letter and in the report of the High Court. The Director, CBI, Shri Vijay Rama Rao shall also inquire into the background events of 12-9-1994.

8. A set of case papers including the copy of the memorandum, writ petition, counter-affidavits filed so far as well as copy of the letter of the Chief Justice received on 13-9-1994 shall be furnished to the Director, CBI forthwith. We request the Director, CBI to commence the inquiry forthwith and make his report to this Court within seven days from today.

9. All authorities of the State shall afford every assistance to Shri Vijay Rama Rao, Director, CBI in discharge of this Commission. Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, Advocate General present in Court assures such full assistance to him on behalf of the State Government and all its authorities. Needless to add that the Registrar of the High Court shall also furnish such assistance as may be necessary.

10. List it on 22-9-1994.

Court Masters

Supreme Court Bar Association And Others v. State Of U.P And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Supreme Court Bar Association And Others v. State Of U.P And Others

Comments