The Supreme Court's division bench issued a contempt notice to a party and his advocate on record on Friday for making "derogatory" allegations in a Special Leave Petition against the Karnataka High Court.

The Apex Court observed that "While assailing those orders before this Court, in the memo of special leave petition, the petitioner has made the following
averments:-

“..Therefore the reason assigned by the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka for extraneous reason and to harass the respondents is unwarranted one and without any basis or foundation to justify the same. On the other hand the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka has taken into consideration extraneous reason and as a revenge imposed exemplary cost of Rs.5 lakh to the petitioner.

The further reason assigned by the lower appellate court for dismissing the writ appeal that the appellant has suppressed the material facts of his avocation and no locus standi to file writ petition and writ appeal and wasted the time of the court and imposed cost of Rs.5 lakh. Said reasoning of the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka is totally false because the Petitioner has disclosed each and every fact at the time of submitting application for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner. The documents appended to the writ petition and writ appeal clearly goes to show that he has disclosed everything and not suppressed the material facts as observed by Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka. Only to show favouritism towards the respondents and to harass the Petitioner and only to gain publicity, the Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka has imposed exemplary cost for ulterior purpose. This is not a public interest litigation filed by the appellant. The writ petition and writ appeal preferred by the appellant on personal capacity to enforce judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of India and redressal of his grievance and not for any other purpose.”

"The aforesaid observations are not only derogatory to the Karnataka High Court but highly contemptuous in nature".

The court referred to a judgement of the Constitution Bench in M.Y. Shareef and Another v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors., which observed that "The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of M.Y. Shareef and Another v. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. (1955) 1 S.C.R. 757, has held that even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the Court."

The petitioner Mohan Chandra P. and the Advocate on Record were thus given notice by the court to provide justifications as to why a case of contempt of court should not be brought against them.

By submitting a writ petition to the Karnataka High Court, Mohan Chandra P., a practising attorney, contested the choice of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners by the State of Karnataka. The High Court's single bench dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court noted that he failed to present any evidence to the Court to support the claims he made while dismissing the writ appeal. A fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed on him for "squandering public and judicial time of the Court by filing writ petition and writ appeal."

This SLP filed by the petitioner against this order of the High Court came up for admission before a bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagaratha. The judge remarked that certain of the averments made in the SLP memorandum are not only disrespectful to the Karnataka High Court but very contemptuous in nature. The order made by the bench quotes the aforementioned allegations. 

Case details

Mohan Chandra P. vs State of Karnataka

SLP (Crl) 19043/2022

Read the Complete Order on the following Link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/33415/33415_2022_9_19_39629_Order_11-Nov-2022.pdf