submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, based
on Section 15 of the 1997 Act. It was contended, that a
reference could be made only by the particular court, of
which contempt was allegedly committed, and not by just any
court. And that, only the said particular court, could
make a reference to the High Court, to initiate contempt
proceedings. It is not possible for us to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at
least, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
In our considered view, in the sense that the above
contention has been advanced, it would not be open to any
Member of the lower judiciary, to make a reference to a
High Court, wherein general allegations have been levelled.
The publication of the article in the newspaper – Greater
Kashmir, wherein, only general allegations have been
levelled, according to learned counsel for the petitioners,
cannot be the basis of any action. It was highlighted, on
the basis of the compilation of Centre for Media Studies
(Petitioner No.2), and publication of the compilation
effectuated by Transparency International India (Petitioner
No.1), that 92% of the lower judiciary in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir, was perceived to be corrupt, and there
were actual figures of 2,23,267 cases, where bribe was
actually given. But there were no allegations aimed at any
individual Judge or Court. Only because the above
allegations were not aimed at any particular Court, the
provisions of the 1997 Act could not be invoked. It is not
possible for us to accept the above contention. We may
clarify, that the term “of a subordinate court”, used in
Section 15(2) of the 1997 Act – could well contemplate a
situation, where the alleged contemptuous action is aimed
at more than one court, or a large number of courts, all
at once. In that eventuality, in our considered view, any
one of such courts, can make a reference to the High Court,
under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of
Courts Act, 1997. In view of the above, we may be deemed
to have concluded, that where the contemptuous action is of
a general nature, and is not aimed at specific Judges or
Courts, any one of such Judges or Courts, which perceives
that the same is aimed at him (or it), would be well within
its right, to make a reference of the same to the
jurisdictional High court. And thereupon, whether
cognizance and initiation of contempt proceedings need to
be taken, would fall within the realm of the High Court
itself.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.180 OF 2006
TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA & ANR. ...
VS.
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR.
Dated:21st February, 2017.
Citation:AIR 2017 SC1333
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by two
petitioners, Transparency International India and Centre
for Media Studies. The cause for the petitioners, to
approach this Court, seems to emerge from a study,
described as “India Corruption Study to improve
Governance”, conducted by Centre for Media Study, and
published by Transparency International India. It was
sought to be repeatedly highlighted, that the above
research program taken on hand by Centre for Media Studies,
was a general study on governance, predominantly with
reference to the bureaucracy, and the functioning of the
administrative machinery. Yet it was acknowledged, that
there were references to the functioning of the judiciary,
as well.
2. Even though, the above study was conducted
independently, with reference to each State, yet the
relevant study, which has brought the petitioners of the
instant writ petition to this Court, pertains to the State
of Jammu and Kashmir, and is limited to the findings
recorded therein, with reference only to the lower
judiciary. For the aforesaid purpose, learned counsel for
the petitioners invited our attention to Table No.2.1:
Jammu and Kashmir-Ranking of Public Services, the extract
whereof, which is relevant to the subject of the present
controversy, is extracted hereunder :
“Table No.2.1: Jammu & Kashmir-Ranking of Public Services
Department
Direct
experience
of bribing
Quality of
service is
poor
Using
influence/
middlemen
Perception
that
department
is
corrupt
Lack of
Commitment
to
reduce
corruption
Perception
increased
Composite
Index
Value
NEED BASED
Judiciary
(Lower)
96 81 09 92 88 86 87
A perusal of the table extracted above reveals, that the
compilation of the views of those who were asked (to
express their views) led to the inference, that 92% of the
lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, was
perceived to be corrupt.
3. It is also relevant to refer to Table 2.2: (Estimated
No. of Households Paid Bribes), wherein, with reference to
the lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
study incorporated, the following data/information :
“Table No.2.2 : Estimated No. of Households Paid Bribes
Department No. of Households Paid Bribes
Judiciary (Lower) 223267
A perusal of the table extracted above reveals, that
2,23,267 cases of actual bribe giving were disclosed, with
reference to the lower judiciary, in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir.
4. Based on the findings recorded, with reference to the
lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, Jammu &
Kashmir, on 4.5.2006 initiated action against five
individuals/parties, details whereof are extracted
hereunder :
“1. P.N. Razdan, author of Op.Ed.
Page – Corruption in J&K – here, there and
Everywhere – I & II, C/o Greater Kashmir
2. Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo, editor Printer &
Publisher, GK
14/B Sanat Nagar, Srinagar/6 Pratap Park,
Residency Road
3. Zahir-ud-In – Executive Editor
Greater Kashmir
4. Centre for Media Studies
New Delhi through its Director/Secretary
C/o GK
5. Transparency International
through Chief Executive Officer C/o GK
(non-applicant/respondents)”
It is therefore apparent, that the Centre for Media Studies
(Petitioner No.2, before this Court), was issued notice at
serial No.4, and Transparency International (Petitioner
No.1, herein) was issued notice at serial No.5.
5. The text of the order dated 4th May, 2006, is also
reproduced hereinbelow :
“Order
4
th May 06
Whereas Greater Kashmir, Newspapers daily,
printed and published by non-applicant No.2 as
edited by non-applicant No.3 has published an
article in Op.-Ed at page 7 filled 'Corruption
in J&K - here, there and everywhere – I & II
authorized by non-applicant No.1, based on
certain references to non-applicants 4 & 5 in
the paper dated 3rd and 4th May, 2006.
Whereas the subtitle of the article in
bold front depicts, 'Lower Judiciary' and
further in Column 2, line 45 and col.3 line 8 –
wherein the author refers, “Kashmir viewed as
the most corrupt, Lower Judiciary (86%) and
referred to as 'govt. - sucking' – Also in
article Part II – published on 4th May 06 col.1
and 2 last line (Col.1) and first seven lines
in col.2 which are reproduced herein below. “A
strong and honest head of the unit or
department, who is easily amenable to the
public, has powers to take drastic action
against the delinquent officials, and has a
political interference, is sure to deliver
results”.
Whereas such publication is libelous in
nature, where such sweeping reference towards
the judiciary is general and subordinate
judiciary (lower) as mentioned in the article
in particular, thereby not only scandalizing
the whole system of administration of justice,
but also defaming the public servants (member
of subordinate judicial services) who are
employed in connection with administration of
justice and thereby lowering down the image of
judiciary as a whole and tends to scandalize
and lower down the image of judiciary as a
whole undermining the authority of courts (esp.
lower courts) and shaking the confidence of
general public and prejudicing the due course
of justice.
Whereas such generic remarks cast
reflections on the very conduct of subordinate
judiciary and even sight upto their
administrative heads as given in part II,
creating doubts about the integrity of
functioning of the Department as a whole.
Whereas in the opinion of this court, this
flagrant statement has not only lowered down
the image of judiciary and is direct
interference into the administration of justice
and callous and irresponsible behaviour on the
part of respondents.
Therefore by virtue of this show cause
notice you are hereby called upon to explain
your position, within a period of 15 days from
the issuance of this notice as to why action as
warranted under law be not initiated against
you.
Issued under my hand and seal of this
court, today this 4th May, 06.”
(emphasis is ours)
6. A perusal of the order dated 4.5.2006, according to
the learned counsel for the respondent, makes it abundantly
clear, that the same is in the nature of a 'show cause
notice', calling for the explanation of the noticees. This
position, in our view, merits acceptance. It is also
relevant to mention, that the order dated 4.5.2006 also
brought out, that the same was being passed under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997, and/or
Section 2/6 read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir
Penal Code. It is in the above perspective, that we will
examine the submissions of the rival counsel, while
adjudicating upon the controversy in hand.
7. Thereafter (after the issuance of the notice
extracted above, dated 4th May, 2006), it was pointed out on
behalf of the petitioners, that further notices dated
16.2.2006 and 1.7.2006, were also issued, for the same
purpose. The notice dated 1.07.06, categorically
expressed, “...Now again you are being issued notice to
cause your appearance or through your authorized
representative to answer all material questions as to why
cognizance as taken above be not proceeded against you on
or before next date of hearing ...” It is therefore
apparent, that the personal presence of the petitioners (or
others, to whom the above notices were issued) was not
sought.
8. The pleadings in the instant writ petition, more
particularly paragraph 6 thereof, acknowledge that,
Transparency International India (-Petitioner No.1 herein),
received the show cause notice on 7.7.2006, and Centre for
Media Studies (-Petitioner No.2 herein), received the same
on 16.6.2006. Having received the aforesaid notices, the
following response was addressed by the Centre for Media
Studies (-Petitioner No.2), to the Judicial Magistrate,
Class-I, Kangan, Jammu & Kashmir, on 23.6.2006. The same
is extracted below :
“RESEARCH HOUSE
Saket Community Centre
New Delhi-110017
23 June 2006
To
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class
Kangan, J&K
Ref: You notice of 16/06/2006, No.101/MK
Contempt of Courts Act – 1997, Sec.216 read
with Section 499, 500/501 RPC.
Sir,
Although the Order dated 16 June 2006
mentioned that “a copy of the complaint it
enclosed”, a copy of the complaint has not been
enclosed. Instead, a copy of the Order dated
4
th May, 2006 directing show cause notice to be
issued and posting the case to 19 May 2006 was
enclosed. The Order dated 4th May 2006 was not
served on us till today. A copy of the letter
is received along with Order dated 16 June
2006. Therefore, we had no opportunity to
respond to the notice dated 4 May 2006. This
letter may be treated as response to the show
cause notice directed to be issued on 4th May,
2006.
Without a copy of the complaint and a copy
of the article entitled Corruption in Jammu &
Kashmir here, there and everywhere – I & II by
Mr. F.N. Razdan as published in Greater Kashmir
being made available to us, it is not possible
for us to reply to the show cause notice or to
assist the Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate
Class-1st, Kangan in this case. We, therefore
request that these crucial documents which are
absolutely essential to be supplied to us.
Only after seeing the said article which is the
basis of the complaint we will be able to
explain the reference allegedly made there in
to the Centre for Media Studies.
At this point of time we can only say that
we are not a party to the said article and we
have no role in the writing or publication of
the said article. We have no connection either
with the author of the article or the
publication of the said article. We have no
connection either with the author of the
article or the publisher or the editor of the
newspaper concerned.
Nevertheless, we would like to state that
CMS has been undertaking for more than a couple
of years national surveys on corruption
involving ordinary citizen in various public
services/utilities. In this exercise eminent
experts on the subjects covered in the study
are being consulted. More specifically, Chief
Central Vigilance Commissioner, Vigilance
Commissioners, Justice Rajinder Sachhar (former
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court), Shri
Prashant Bhushan, for example, and such other
outstanding national personalities have been
consulted at one point or other in the process
of designing and conducting these surveys on
corruption and common citizen. They are all
familiar with the survey findings and the
reports published by Transparency International
India some months ago. J & K was included in
the India Corruption Survey of 2005 conducted
by CMS in collaboration with Transparency
International India and its President Admiral
R.H. Tahiliani. The then Vigilance Commissioner
of J & K (Shri Radhavinod Raju, IPS) visited
CMS in New Delhi for discussions and was aware
of the survey both before conducting, during
the time of the survey in J & K, and after the
publication of the report in this context.
The said study covers 19 other States of
India. CMS has been appreciated for its
pioneering work in this regard and many,
including senior officials of the States, have
thanked us for the study. The study findings
were published by internationally reputed
Transparency International India and its
Chairman Admiral R.H. Tahiliani took personal
interest with a hope that seriousness is
imparted into public debate on critical issues
before the Nation with more reliable field
data. Further as concerned citizens to India,
we are as much sincerely concerned and
interested in upholding the status and role of
Judiciary in the country. In fact, the
Chairman of CMS had closely worked in the last
decade with two former Chief Justices of India
– Justice P.N. Bhagawati and Justice R.S.
Pathak. Our Chairman was the national Convener
while they were the Chairpersons of Social
Audit Panels constituted by Ministry of
Communication and Ministry of Environment and
Forests, respectively.
There was never any intention at all on
our part to scandalize or lower the authority
of the judiciary much less interface with the
due course of justice or obstruct the
administration of justice in any manner.
We pray that in view of the facts stated
above, the Order directing appearance on July
1
st, 2016 may be recalled and the case closed
as against us.
Thanking you,
Sincerely
For Centre for Media Studies”
(emphasis is ours)
9. A separate response dated 7.7.2016, was also
addressed on behalf of Transparency International India
(-Petitioner No.1, herein) to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Kangan. Since the response runs into several pages,
for reasons of brevity, we shall extract hereunder, only a
relevant portion thereof :
“However, without any prejudice, we would like
to make the following submissions :
1. We are aware that subordinate courts do not
have the power of contempt under the
Contempt of Courts Act. They can at most
make a reference to the High Court and the
High Court can then, take a decision on the
matter.
2. We presume that your notice is only to
enable you to decide whether to make a
reference to the High Court to commence
contempt proceedings.
3. We presume that our response is to enable
the above and not to directly commence
contempt proceedings at this stage.
4. We now enclose a reply to this notice as to
why action may not be initiated against us
on the charges of contempt, libel and
defamation.”
(emphasis is ours)
10. A perusal of the extracts from the responses,
reproduced above, would reveal, that the petitioners did
not object to the initiation of the show cause proceedings.
It is necessary to notice, that the petitioners informed
the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, that while it
was open to the Magistrate to make a reference to the High
Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Magistrate had
no right to suo moto initiate proceedings, under the
Contempt of Courts Act. Besides recording the above
submissions in its reply, Transparency International India
also highlighted the fact, that it had not seen the
newspaper article, which constituted the basis, for the
show cause. It also expressly asserted, that Petitioner
No.1 had no connection with the author/publisher/editor of
the newspaper-Greater Kashmir. The reply, also gave out,
the functions/activities and the credentials of the
Transparency International India. Be that as it may, it
needs to be noticed, that in its response Transparency
International India, in the reference to the said letter,
as also, in the contents thereof acknowledged, that the
proceedings had been initiated under the Jammu & Kashmir
Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 and/or Section 2(d) read with
Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
11. It seems, that having responded to the notices
received from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Kangan (through their communications, referred to above),
the petitioners felt satisfied, that no further response
was called for on their behalf. And therefore, despite
having been required to enter appearance before the
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, vide orders dated
16.6.2006 and 1.7.2006, the petitioners chose not to appear
before the concerned Court. Consequent upon the nonappearance
of the petitioners before the Judicial
Magistrate, the impugned order dated 24.8.2006 came to be
passed. The text of the above order is reproduced below :
“Whereas a Robkar titled above is pending
before this Court and the attendance of the
said non-applicant is required.
As such you are asked to arrest the said
person and produce him before this court on
27.9.06. In case the said person furnish the
bail bond of Rs.15,000/- and the surety of like
amount, he shall be released.”
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the above order reveals, that even though the
respondents had been summoned to the Court, they had not
entered appearance, and therefore, their attendance was
being procured through bailable warrants.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in his effort to
assail the above order dated 24.8.2006, vehemently
contended, that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan,
seems to have taken upon himself, the jurisdiction vested
in a High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. It was
submitted, that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan,
had no authority to direct the attendance or the presence
of the petitioners, under contempt proceedings. It was
submitted, that the impugned order extracted above, was
clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate.
It was pointed out, that when the matter was listed before
this Court for hearing, on the first occasion itself, on
20.9.2006, this Court stayed the operation of the order
dated 24.8.2006, till further orders. It was pointedly
asserted, that this Court must have been clearly conscious,
of the abuse of jurisdiction of contempt proceedings, at
the hands of the Judicial Magistrate, and accordingly, in
its motion Bench order dated 20.9.2006, this Court, not
only stayed the execution of the warrants of arrest (issued
against the Chairman, Transparency International India, and
the Director, Centre for Media Studies), but also stayed
further proceedings in the matter (pending, before the
concerned Magistrate).
13. In continuation of the position expressed above, it
was the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, that under the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of
Courts Act, 1997, the jurisdiction to initiate contempt
proceedings is only vested with the High Court. For this,
reference has been made to Section 10 thereof, which is
reproduced below :
“10. Power of the High Court to punish
contempts of subordinate courts:- The High
Court shall have and exercise the same
jurisdiction, powers and authority in
accordance with the same procedure and
practice, in respect of contempts of courts
subordinate to it as it has and exercises in
respect of contempts itself :
Provided that the High Court shall not
take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have
been committed in respect of a court
subordinate to it where such contempt is an
offence punishable under the Ranbir Penal Code,
Samvat 1989.”
(emphasis is ours)
Based on the mandate of Section 10 extracted above, it was
submitted, that even when contempt was alleged to have been
committed against a subordinate court, only the
jurisdictional High Court and not the subordinate court
(against which the contempt is alleged to have been
committed) had jurisdiction to initiate contempt
proceedings.
14. Furthermore, even though it was acknowledged, that
cognizance of criminal contempt could have been taken, at
the instance of a subordinate court, it was submitted, that
only the High Court had the authority to initiate action in
the matter. For this, reference was made to Section 15 of
the 1997 Act, which is reproduced below:
“15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other
cases :- (1) In the case of criminal contempt,
other than a contempt referred in section 14,
the High Court may take action on its own
motion or of a motion made by -
(a) the Advocate General; or
(b) any other person, with the consent in
writing of the Advocate General.
(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a
subordinate court, the High Court may take
action on a reference made to it by the
subordinate court or on a motion made by the
Advocate General.
(3) Every motion or reference made under this
section shall specify the contempt of which the
person charged is allegedly to be guilty.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression
“Advocate General” means the Advocate General
of the State.”
(emphasis is ours)
Based on Section 15 extracted above, it was submitted, that
only that subordinate court, against which criminal
contempt is alleged to have been committed, can make a
reference, about the same to the jurisdictional High Court.
Relying on sub-section (2) of Section 15, it was sought to
be explained, that it was only the court, of which contempt
has been committed, and which was having intrinsic
knowledge thereof, was authorized to make such reference,
and not just any court.
15. It was submitted, that the extract from the report of
the Centre for Media Studies, which was sought to be
published by Transparency International India, was a
general report, based on a study. And that, the report was
not aimed at a particular court, and as such, it was not
open to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, in any
case, even to make such a reference to the High Court,
within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1997 Act.
16. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, that in the absence of the petitioners,
the Judicial Magistrate, Kangan, ought to have proceeded in
accordance with law, after taking into consideration the
response submitted by the petitioners. In this behalf it
was asserted, that the response of the petitioners, to the
notice issued to them, ought to have been considered, and
further proceedings ought to have been dropped, as the
petitioners could not be held to be blameworthy, of the
newspaper reporting.
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the hands of learned counsel for
the petitioners. We have also heard learned counsel for
the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who has generally supported
the cause, and the different orders, passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan.
18. We would first like to deal with one of the
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, based
on Section 15 of the 1997 Act. It was contended, that a
reference could be made only by the particular court, of
which contempt was allegedly committed, and not by just any
court. And that, only the said particular court, could
make a reference to the High Court, to initiate contempt
proceedings. It is not possible for us to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at
least, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
In our considered view, in the sense that the above
contention has been advanced, it would not be open to any
Member of the lower judiciary, to make a reference to a
High Court, wherein general allegations have been levelled.
The publication of the article in the newspaper – Greater
Kashmir, wherein, only general allegations have been
levelled, according to learned counsel for the petitioners,
cannot be the basis of any action. It was highlighted, on
the basis of the compilation of Centre for Media Studies
(Petitioner No.2), and publication of the compilation
effectuated by Transparency International India (Petitioner
No.1), that 92% of the lower judiciary in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir, was perceived to be corrupt, and there
were actual figures of 2,23,267 cases, where bribe was
actually given. But there were no allegations aimed at any
individual Judge or Court. Only because the above
allegations were not aimed at any particular Court, the
provisions of the 1997 Act could not be invoked. It is not
possible for us to accept the above contention. We may
clarify, that the term “of a subordinate court”, used in
Section 15(2) of the 1997 Act – could well contemplate a
situation, where the alleged contemptuous action is aimed
at more than one court, or a large number of courts, all
at once. In that eventuality, in our considered view, any
one of such courts, can make a reference to the High Court,
under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of
Courts Act, 1997. In view of the above, we may be deemed
to have concluded, that where the contemptuous action is of
a general nature, and is not aimed at specific Judges or
Courts, any one of such Judges or Courts, which perceives
that the same is aimed at him (or it), would be well within
its right, to make a reference of the same to the
jurisdictional High court. And thereupon, whether
cognizance and initiation of contempt proceedings need to
be taken, would fall within the realm of the High Court
itself.
19. We are, however, satisfied in accepting, that the
Judicial Magistrate, Kangan, had absolutely no jurisdiction
or authority to pass the impugned order dated 24.8.2006,
whereby, it contemplated to enforce the attendance of the
petitioners (amongst others), by way of arrest. We are
also of the view, that in a case as the one in hand, the
petitioners had perceived, that the proceedings initiated
by the Judicial Magistrate on 4.5.2006, were misconceived.
And accordingly, in their written submissions, it was
acknowledged “...We presume that your notice is only to
enable you to decide whether to make a reference to the
High Court to commence contempt proceedings... We presume
that our response is to enable the above and not to
directly commence contempt proceedings at this stage...”
Having received the aforesaid response from the
petitioners, and the petitioners having not entered
appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial
Magistrate ought to have proceeded further with the matter,
in consonance with law. And if it was the Court's
understanding, that the matter needed to be taken further,
either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 and/or under
Section 2/6 read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir
Penal Code, the Court ought to have done so.
20. In view of the above, while disposing of the instant
petition, we direct the present Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Kangan (the judicial officer holding the charge of
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan) to
proceed with the matter in furtherance of the original show
cause notice dated 4.5.2006. It shall be open to the
petitioners to enter their appearance before the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class (either in person or through their
counsel). In case the petitioners do not enter appearance
before the Judicial Magistrate, he may pass such an order,
as he considers appropriate, in consonance with law.
Needless to mention, that it would be open to the
petitioners to assail the same, in case they are aggrieved
thereof. The order dated 24.8.2006 is quashed and set
aside.
21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioners also placed reliance on Section 199-B of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, as is applicable to the
State of Jammu & Kashmir, to contend that, it would not be
open to the Magistrate concerned to initiate proceedings
under Section 2/6 read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the
Ranbir Penal Code. We record the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, and in case the concerned
Judicial Magistrate desires to proceed under the aforesaid
provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, the Court shall take
due notice of the submissions advanced by the petitioners
under Section 199-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
22. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the
petitioners informed us, that Admiral R.H. Tahiliani, to
whom the notices dated 16.6.2006 and 1.7.2006 were issued,
has since passed away, and as such, proceedings initiated
against him, would stand abated. We find force in the
contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the
petitioners. The proceedings initiated against Admiral
R.H. Tahiliani, shall be deemed to have abated.
23. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Consequent upon the disposal of the main petition, all the
pending applications, shall also stand disposed of.
......................CJI.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
........................J.
[Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD]
........................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
New Delhi;
21st February, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment