caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
In Re : Vijay Kurle And Ors vs Unknown on 3 September, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
M.A. No.1434 of 2020
In
Misc. Application Diary No.15272 of 2020
In
Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.2 of 2019
Rashid Khan Pathan
……. Applicant
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
IN RE: Vijay Kurle & Ors.
…. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. By a judgment dated 27.04.2020, the Appellant
herein Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan and two others, Sh. Vijay
Kurle and Sh. Nilesh Ojha were held guilty of contempt for
making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against the
Judges of this Court. On 01.05.2020, the matter was listed
for hearing the contemnors on the sentence. On that day
this Court was informed that applications for recall of the
judgment dated 27.04.2020 were filed. Anyhow, the
matter could not be heard on 01.05.2020 due to technical
1 | Page
reasons as connection could not be established with one of
the contemnors or his counsel. After hearing the
contemnors regarding the sentence on 04.05.2020, this
Court 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 with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In view of the
Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions, this Court
directed that the sentence shall come into force after
sixteen weeks from 04.05.2020. The contemnors were
directed to surrender before the Secretary General of this
Court to undergo the imprisonment.
2. An application filed by the contemnor No.3 – Sh.
Nilesh Ojha for recusal of Justice Deepak Gupta was
rejected on the same day i.e. on 04.05.2020. Interim
Application Nos. 48480, 48482 and 48484 of 2020 were
filed by the contemnors seeking recall of the judgment
dated 27.04.2020. This Court was of the opinion that the
recall applications were not maintainable and the only
proper remedy available to the contemnors is to file a
Review Petition. In such view of the matter, this Court
2 | Page
dismissed the applications for recall of the judgment dated
27.04.2020 by giving liberty to the contemnors to file a
Review Petition, if they so desired. The prayer made by
Sh. Nilesh Ojha that he may be granted liberty to file a Writ
Petition was also rejected by this Court by holding that a
writ petition is not maintainable against the judgment
dated 27.04.2020.
3. The Appellant herein filed an application for recall of
the order dated 04.05.2020. By relying upon the
judgments of this Court, the Registrar (Administration) by
an order dated 07.08.2020 lodged the application as ‘it did
not deserve to be received for registration’. The above
appeal is preferred by Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan against the
said order of the Registrar (Administration) dated
07.08.2020.
4. Sh. Paratho Sorkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant submitted that the judgment dated 27.04.2020 is
without jurisdiction. Therefore, application for recall is
maintainable. He submitted that this Court in A.R.
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1 clearly held that the formality of
Review Application should not be insisted upon and this
1 (1988) 2 SCC 602
3 | Page
Court should correct the errors in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, especially in matters of violation of
fundamental rights. Mr. Sorkar argued that the judgment
dated 27.04.2020 has been impliedly overruled by a larger
bench of this Court in Suo Motu Contempt Petition
(Crl.) No.1 of 20202.
5. The order passed by the Registrar (Administration)
lodging the application filed for recall of the order dated
04.05.2020 was mainly challenged on the ground that
the judgment of this Court dated 27.04.2020 is without
jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court should not insist on
filing an application for review. In such circumstances,
the Appellant contended that an application for recall is
maintainable. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishna
Kumar Pandey3 in support of the contention that an
application for recall is maintainable when the order is
passed without jurisdiction. The Respondent in the said
case was convicted for an offence punishable under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
2 In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr, Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 1 of 2020
3 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1786
4 | Page
was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The
appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Court
against which he filed a Revision Petition under Section 397
Cr. P.C. before the High Court. The Revision Petition was
partly allowed by the High Court and the sentence was
reduced to the period already undergone. The High Court
also held that the conviction shall not affect the service
career of the Respondent adversely. The Appellant filed an
application for correction of the order passed in the
Revision Petition which was dismissed. The Respondent-
Employee submitted before the High Court that the order
cannot be modified. The High Court accepted the
submission of the Respondent-Employee in that case and
dismissed the application against which the Appellant
approached this Court. This Court was of the opinion that
the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in holding
that the conviction shall not affect the service career of the
Respondent therein. By referring to an earlier judgment of
this Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar4 it was held that inherent power of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was available to pass suitable
4 (2011) 14 SCC 770
5 | Page
orders where an order is passed without jurisdiction or in
violation of the principles of natural justice. The said
judgment has no application to the facts of this case. By
no stretch of imagination can it be said that the order
dated 04.05.2020 suffers from the vice of lack of
jurisdiction.
6. Yet another ground raised in the appeal is that an
application for recall is maintainable when principles of
natural justice are violated. A perusal of the order dated
04.05.2020 discloses that the Appellant and the other
contemnors were heard before the applications were
dismissed. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant is
without any substance.
7. As we are concerned only with an application filed to
recall the order dated 04.05.2020 it is not necessary to
examine the submission made by Mr. Sorkar that the
judgment dated 27.04.2020 has been impliedly overruled
by a later judgment of this Court in Prashant Bhushan’s
case (supra). We are in agreement with the order passed
by the Registrar (Administration) holding the application
6 | Page
for recall of the order dated 04.05.2020 is not
maintainable.
8. This Court in Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban5
deprecated the practice of filing of applications for
“clarification”, “modification” or “recall” of final judgments
or orders. It was held in the said judgment that a party
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. Such an
application deserves to be dismissed with costs. While
lodging the application for recall, the Registrar
(Administration) relied upon another judgment of this Court
in A. P. S. R. T. C. v. Abdul Karim6 in which it was held
that applications for clarification, which are in essence and
substance seeking the review of an order of the Court, are
impermissible and amounted to an undesirable practice
which do not deserve any consideration by the Court.
9. In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of
the judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is
5 (2000) 7 SCC 296
6 C.A. 7797/2003
7 | Page
attached to the finality of the judgment. Permitting the
parties to reopen the concluded judgments of this Court by
filing repeated interlocutory applications is clearly an abuse
of the process of law and would have far-reaching adverse
impact on the administration of justice7.
10. Repeated filing of applications which are not
maintainable amounts to abuse of process of law. O.
Chinappa Reddy, J. in Advocate General, State of Bihar
v. M.P. Khair Industries8 was of the opinion that abuse of
process of Courts amounts to criminal contempt. In the
said case, the Respondent was accused of filing repeated
applications and obstructing the administration of justice
which interfered with the due course of judicial
proceedings.
11. Repeated filing of applications can also result in a
direction that no further applications shall be received by
the Registry of this Court in respect of the litigation (See:
Ila Vipin Pandya (2) v. Smita Ambalal Patel9).
12. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash
Khadekar10, D.Y. Chandrachud J, speaking for a three-
7 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 161
8 (1980) 3 SCC 311
9 (2007) 6 SCC 750
10 (2017) 5 SCC 496
8 | Page
Judge bench held that Courts are obligated to act firmly in
dealing with abuse of process, and impose exemplary costs
when necessary. Chandrachud J. held:
“13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not
dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth
or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no
doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not
venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced
expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are
inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in
litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country,
there is no premium on the truth.
14. Courts across the legal system—this Court not being an
exception—are choked with litigation. Frivolous and
groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time and clog the
infrastructure. Productive resources which should be
deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated
in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by
prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No
litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately,
as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing
justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of
the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a
simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of
how successive applications have been filed to prolong the
inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of
justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by
repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency
can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an
institutional approach which penalises such behaviour.
Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos
and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that
courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by
litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of
the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here
and now our society will breed a legal culture based on
evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to
firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of
exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be
deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of
9 | Page
frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart
time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of
those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time
costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is
available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise,
the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the
weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such
a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is
not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation
cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not
exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat
or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with
frivolous filings in the same manner.”
13. The application for recall of an order by which an
earlier application for recall of the judgment was dismissed
is not maintainable. The only remedy open to the
Appellant was to have filed a Review Petition as suggested
by this Court in the order dated 04.05.2020. We are of the
considered view that the application for recall of the order
dated 04.05.2020 is an abuse of process of Court.
Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the Appeal with
exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five
Thousand Only). If the Appellant continues to file such
repetitive applications in this litigation which are not
maintainable, he will be visited with deterrent actions
referred above such as initiation of criminal contempt
proceedings or a direction to the Registry that no further
applications in this litigation will be received.
10 | P a g e
…………………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…………………………..J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
New Delhi,
September 03, 2020.
11 | P a g e
Comments