Two Supreme Court of India Judges, Judge Rohintan Nariman and Judge Vineet Saran have by a decision dated 12 March 2019 found lawyer Mathews Nedumpara to be guilty of contempt of court. The judgment can be read at https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-359059.pdf
The finding of guilt for contempt of court without notice, hearing or trial might not have been the right approach in this case, even if the contempt was in the face of the court. Going by reports of what transpired after the alleged statement was made, apologies/ clarifications were issued and the hearing on merits continued. Proceedings were not disrupted. There is some ambiguity about exactly what was said and what the context was. Immediate contempt action would apply in a situation where the Court cannot continue functioning without addressing the contempt. In this case, the situation was perhaps different. Notice could have been issued as the principles of natural justice must be departed from only in the most exceptional of circumstances.
I read the Judgment of J. Nariman and J. Saran and found it unsatisfactory on several counts.
First on the merits of the main writ petition itself, the Court did not discuss the grounds for Nedumpara's petition. Were they different from the Indira Jaising matter. If they were, it was clearly not a case seeking review. Ms Jaising had more or less conceded on the constitutionality of senior designations or she never challenged this. Her arguments were instead on the procedure and criteria for senior designation. Her petition was for reform and not abolishment of senior designations.
I still believe that the senior advocate designation system is bad and should be discarded. It promotes institutional capture.
On the contempt aspect-
1. There is no clear finding of contempt in the order. Nowhere does the order analyse what Nedumpara did in Court before J. Nariman and J. Saran and discuss why it amounted to contempt. We don't even know exactly what Nedumpara said.
2. What Nedumpara said about Mr Fali Nariman and in what context and for what purpose is unclear. These facts are missing.
3. The discussion of Nedumpara's previous conduct without hearing him is problematic. This previous conduct was clearly not contempt in the face of the Supreme Court so notice should have been issued to him. Also many of the orders mentioned are not final orders. What finally happened in those cases? What about the one year limitation for taking cognizance of contempt of court? Also can past conduct be invoked in this manner is a valid legal issue.
4. If court proceedings were video-recorded all facts in all these cases would be crystal-clear, including whether Nedumpara has indeed misbehaved in Court.
5. How are the statements attributed to Nedumpara in para 2 of the judgment contemptuous. They sound like legal submissions. They might be legally unsound but how do they constitute contempt of court?
No comments:
Post a Comment