Majesty Of Law Never Is, Nor Must Be Reduced To A Mere Claptrap; But To Be Assuredly Exemplified In & By Everything Courts Do: Kerala HC In Contempt Case
|The Kerala High Court remarked that, “Majesty of law never is, nor must be reduced to, a mere claptrap; but to be assuredly exemplified in and by everything Courts do. This is not a daunting task, but an inherent imperative.”
The Court remarked thus in a contempt case registered as a suo motu one under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, initiated based on a letter addressed by the Judge to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed, “… in our deeply considered opinion, the defect noticed is incurable and incapable of rectification through subsequent service of ‘information’ to the respondent, more so when it is beyond controversy that this Court had taken cognizance of the case with such being not available in the Judge’s Papers and thus without having adverted to it. This surely is fatal to the continuance of this case.”
Senior Advocate S. Sanal Kumar (Amicus Curiae) appeared for the respondent while Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy appeared as party-in-person.
Brief Facts -
This contempt case was registered as a suo motu one under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and this case was initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by a Judge of the High Court to the Chief Justice in February 2023. The same was taken as an “information” as postulated under the Act and the Registrar General initiated action, as ordered by the Chief Justice. The Court took cognizance of this case, thus issuing a notice to the respondent; and the latter filed his first Counter Affidavit after having taken time for the same, followed by another Counter Affidavit.
In the second Counter Affidavit, the respondent raised several objections – stating to be “procedural violations” - inter alia, that the “information”, namely the letter of the said Judge had neither been annexed to the notice which he received, nor was a part of the Judges Papers; which led to another Bench to issue an order.
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “When we so hold, any further exercise of jurisdiction would defeat and is likely to be viewed merely to be in defence of the action initiated by this Court. When we have noticed an error in jurisdiction, even at the time of inception, an attempt to rectify would strike at the root of the sacrosanct notions of majesty of law – it perhaps then being construed as being almost valetudinarian.”
The Court said that it would not be expedient to proceed the defect in proceedings being incurable and thus fatal against the respondent further; and that it is axiomatically necessary to drop the proceedings and discharge him.
“Bound by the Constitution, as we are, this would maim Public Trust – the sine qua of any jurisdictional exercise; and would render legal processes – particularly in Suo Motu Contempt motions – vulnerable to deleterious impressions of being one-sided and vitiated”, it also noted.
Accordingly, the High Court closed the contempt proceedings.
Cause Title- Suo Motu v. Yeshwanth Shenoy (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:78880)