- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Leila David (5) v. State Of Maharashtra And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter arises out of a series of writ petitions and contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court of India. An unnumbered application was filed in WP (Crl.) No. D 24281 of 2008 by Ms Annette Kotian seeking recusal of the Bench. During the hearing she, joined by Dr. Sarita Parikh, used indecorous and offensive language in open court, claiming protection under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Bench heard the learned Attorney General and Solicitor General and rejected the application.
Parallel contempt proceedings were pending because footwear had earlier been thrown at the Bench. On 16-7-2009 the Court had adjourned the contempt matter to allow the contemnors to consider cited judgments. When the issue was taken up again, Ms Kotian asserted that all prior orders violated her fundamental rights, while Dr. Parikh attempted to justify the footwear incident as a means of protecting constitutional rights. Ms Leila David denied involvement in the incident and objected to her inclusion among those found guilty of contempt.
In addition, Dr. Parikh, Ms Kotian and Ms David filed a fresh writ petition containing language the Court found “highly objectionable, offensive, and scandalous,” directed not only at the judiciary but also at other constitutional authorities. The Court dismissed this new petition as an abuse of process and, because of its content, issued a fresh rule of contempt against the petitioners.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Bench should recuse itself from hearing WP (Crl.) No. D 24281 of 2008.
- Whether the conduct of the petitioners, including the filing of a new writ petition with scandalous content and prior disruptive behaviour, warrants further contempt proceedings.
- Whether the fresh writ petition should be entertained or summarily dismissed as an abuse of the court’s process.
Arguments of the Parties
Ms Annette Kotian
- Claimed a fundamental right under Article 21 to protect herself and under Article 19 to use “indecorous, indecent, slanderous and offensive language.”
- Asserted that all existing court orders violated her fundamental rights and therefore no further submissions were necessary in the contempt matter.
Dr. Sarita Parikh
- Endorsed Ms Kotian’s position regarding fundamental rights.
- Justified throwing footwear at the Bench as a means to draw judicial attention to alleged constitutional violations.
- Claimed a right to use any means, including vilification of constitutional functionaries, to preserve the “sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”
Ms Leila David
- Denied responsibility for the footwear incident.
- Contended she should not have been included among those found guilty of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2009) 10 SCC 349 (Order dated 16-7-2009) | Adjournment granted to allow contemnors to study certain judgments. | Referenced as the prior occasion when the Court afforded an opportunity to make submissions in the contempt matter. |
| (2009) 4 SCC 578 (Order dated 20-3-2009) | Order referring matters to a Special Bench. | Cited to explain the procedural history leading to the present hearing of the contempt proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Recusal Application: After hearing the Attorney General and Solicitor General, the Court found no merit in the request for recusal. The application was rejected outright.
2. Fresh Writ Petition: The Court characterized the petition’s language and prayers as “objectionable, offensive, and scandalous,” amounting to an abuse of the judicial process. It held that such petitions should not be entertained and dismissed it at the threshold.
3. Contempt Proceedings: The Court reviewed the contemnors’ explanations and found their conduct—both inside and outside the courtroom—contumacious. It held that the claimed exercise of fundamental rights cannot justify vilification of the judiciary and other constitutional authorities. Accordingly, it issued a fresh rule of contempt requiring the contemnors to show cause why they should not be punished.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Bench refused to recuse, dismissed the fresh writ petition, and issued a new rule of contempt against Ms Annette Kotian, Dr. Sarita Parikh and Ms Leila David. All pending writ petitions and contempt matters were scheduled “for orders” on 21-10-2009, and the contemnors were directed to be present in person.
Implications: The immediate effect is the dismissal of the latest writ petition and the initiation of additional contempt proceedings, placing the contemnors at risk of imprisonment or other sanctions. No new legal precedent was created; the order primarily reinforces the Court’s authority to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings and to censure abuse of the judicial process.
Order
1. 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 (2009) 10 SCC 349, (2009) 13 Scale 326, 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 (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 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. Sarita 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. 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. Sarita 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
Alert