1989 PLP 2409 (MLD)
CHARAN LAL SAHU — Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2409 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (India) |
| Bench Members | Ranganath Misra and K.N. Singly J |
| Parties | CHARAN LAL SAHU — Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2409 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2409 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (India) bench comprising: Ranganath Misra and K.N. Singly J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2409 (MLD) (CHARAN LAL SAHU — Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Supreme Court--Petition by way of public interest litigation--Unsavoury language used in petition--Intentional attempt made by petitioner to lower prestige of Supreme Court--Petitioner, held, was prima facie guilty of contempt.
Judgment & Decree
At one another place, the petitioner has stated that:- "This Court has become a Constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government .... Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant have now turned down their faces against it which is a disillusionment for fear that justice is a will of the wisp." Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that his Court is sleeping over the issues like Kumbhkarna. `The reading of the writ petition gives the impression that it is clearly intended to denigrate this Court in the esteem of the people of India. We are of the prima facie view that the petition has been drawn up with a designed purpose of bringing the Court into contempt and the petitioner is, therefore, prima facie guilty of contempt.
3. The writ petition has been drafted in a careless manner. At several places the pleadings are meaningless. At several other places they are contradictory. The allegations are clumsy and several irrelevant facts have been put into the petition to inflate its size. .
4. The petitioner has left out no institution from his attempt of mudslinging. We have a feeling that while drawing up the petition the petitioner has considered himself to be the only blemishless person and everyone else including social institutions to be blameworthy. We are surprised that an advocate, practising in this Court with considerable experience has chosen to act in such an irresponsible manner. The writ petition, in our opinion, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ ,petition.
5. We direct the Registry to draw up an appropriate proceedings for contempt and issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause in person on 9-11-1987 as to why he may not be proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act.
6. At page 41 of his petition, the petitioner has stated:- "This is a public interest litigation in the interest of independence of judiciary and social justice ...." We are of the view that the petition is an act against public interest. The petitioner has certainly overstepped the limit of self-restraint so much necessary in a public interest litigation. We direct the Registry not to entertain any application by way of public interest litigation by the petitioner in future. M.BA./47/FC Petition dismissed.