Arnab Ranjan Goswami Petitioner(s) v. Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly And Others (s).

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arose in the context of a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court. At the hearing, the petitioner’s senior counsel, Mr. Harish Salve, drew the Court’s attention to a letter dated 13.10.2020 (Letter No. 14223/M.V.S./D-10) issued from the office of Respondent No. 2, the Secretary, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Secretariat, and signed by Mr. Vilas Athawale, Assistant Secretary, Maharashtra Vidhan Mandal Sachivalaya.

The letter stated that the petitioner had presented “the proceedings of the House” before the Supreme Court on 08.10.2020 without prior permission from the Speaker, characterising this as a breach of confidentiality and stating that it was a “serious matter” amounting to “contempt.”

The Court noted that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had been served (apparently on 05.10.2020), but instead of entering appearance, the office of Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned letter to the petitioner. During hearing, the Court asked Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (appearing for Respondent No. 4, the State of Maharashtra) to respond to the letter; he stated he could not explain or justify it as it was issued by Respondent No. 2’s office.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the letter dated 13.10.2020 issued/signed by an officer of the Maharashtra Vidhan Mandal Sachivalaya amounted to interference with the administration of justice by deterring or intimidating a citizen from exercising the fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether notice should be issued to Mr. Vilas Athawale to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Submissions

• The petitioner’s senior counsel invited the Court’s attention to the letter dated 13.10.2020 issued from Respondent No. 2’s office and signed by Mr. Vilas Athawale, asserting it criticised the petitioner for placing House proceedings before the Supreme Court without the Speaker’s permission and labelled the act as contempt/breach of confidentiality.

State of Maharashtra's Submissions (Respondent No. 4)

• Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 4), expressed inability to explain or justify the contents of the letter because it was written by the office of Respondent No. 2, and he did not represent that office.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court characterised the statements in the letter—asserting that the petitioner knowingly breached the Speaker’s orders by presenting House proceedings before the Supreme Court and that such conduct amounted to contempt—as “unprecedented” and as tending to interfere with the administration of justice. The Court inferred from the tenor and content of the letter that its purpose appeared to be to intimidate the petitioner for approaching the Supreme Court and to threaten penalty for seeking a legal remedy.

Emphasising constitutional principle, the Court stated that the right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, quoting Article 32(1) to underline that the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights is guaranteed. The Court observed that deterring a citizen from approaching the Court under Article 32 would constitute a “serious and direct interference” with the administration of justice.

The Court also took note of the procedural posture: despite service on Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the office of Respondent No. 2 issued the letter rather than entering appearance. Since counsel for the State (Respondent No. 4) could not justify the letter, the Court proceeded to consider contempt action against the letter’s author. On that basis, it issued notice to Mr. Vilas Athawale to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated under Article 129 (the Supreme Court’s constitutional power relating to contempt).

Pending further proceedings, the Court granted interim protection to the petitioner against arrest in pursuance of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, appointed a senior counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Court, and permitted impleadment of the Union of India while also issuing notice to the Attorney General for India.

Holding and Implications

NOTICE ISSUED / INTERIM PROTECTION GRANTED: The Court issued notice returnable on 23.11.2020 to Mr. Vilas Athawale, Assistant Secretary, Maharashtra Vidhan Mandal Sachivalaya, to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

The Court further directed that, in the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in pursuance of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. It appointed Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Counsel, as amicus curiae to assist in the matter. The petitioner was allowed to implead the Union of India as a respondent, and notice was issued to the Attorney General for India returnable on 23.11.2020.

The direct implication is that the alleged intimidatory letter is treated as potentially interfering with access to the Supreme Court under Article 32, and the author is required to პასუხ the Court through show-cause proceedings. The order also safeguards the petitioner from arrest pending further consideration. The opinion, as provided, does not state any broader precedential implications beyond these directions.