1    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION      

MA NO 1607 OF 2018   IN  

IA NOS.14870-14871 OF 2018  IN  

WRIT PETITION (C) NO 19 OF 2018  

TEHSEEN POONAWALLA     ..PETITIONER   

VERSUS  

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.          ..RESPONDENT   

AND IN THE MATTER OF :  

ADMIRAL MR LAXMINARAYAN RAMDAS (RETD.)  

AND IN THE MATTER OF :  

MS INDIRA JAISING  

O R D E R  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

1 Ms Indira Jaising has moved a Miscellaneous Application seeking the  

following reliefs :  

REPORTABLE

2    

“a) Issue appropriate order or direction expunging/deleting the  

remarks made against the counsel for present  

intervenor/applicant herein that the conduct of the  

counsel/applicant herein amounted to contempt or prima facie  

contempt of court, namely the following :  

“74. The present case is indeed a case in point. Repeatedly,  

counsel for the petitioners and intervenors have attempted to  

inform the court that they have no personal agenda and that  

they have instituted these proceedings to protect judicial  

independence. An aura of good faith has been sought to be  

created by submitting that the true purpose of seeking an  

inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of Judge  

Loya is to protect the district judiciary(…)”  

“75.[…] Ms Jaising has joined the fray by requesting that this  

court to issue contempt notices to the Administrative  

Committee of the Bombay High Court…”  

“76. […] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors  

scandalises the process of the court and prima facie  

constitutes criminal contempt…”  

“78. [...] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors is,  

as we have indicated, lacking in bona fides and reveals a  

misuse of judicial process.”  

b) Issue appropriate order or direction issuing a clarification  

that the counsel for the present intervener/applicant herein has  

not furthered any submissions or engaged in conduct which  

may amount to contempt of Court if it so deems fit;  

c) Call for High Court of Bombay for the records of the meeting  

of administrative committee of the High Court dated  

25.06.2014 to ascertain the reasons for transfer to Judge  

Utpat, and to ascertain whether the consent of this Hon’ble  

Court was obtained or whether this Hon’ble Court was kept  

informed that Judge Utpat was being transferred;”  

In the batch of cases which was adjudicated upon in the judgment of this Court  

dated 19 April 2018 Ms Jaising represented an intervenor (Admiral Ramdas).   

2 Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of the applicant  

submitted that whatever be the conduct of the other learned counsel who

3    

appeared on behalf of the petitioners and intervenors before this Court, Ms  

Jaising has had no intention to make any submission that would denigrate or  

scandalise the judiciary. It was urged that in making the submission about the  

Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court she has not scandalised  

the judiciary and that neither the written submissions nor the  oral submissions  

would amount to scandalising the process of the Court. Dr Singhvi urged that  

the observations contained in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 78 of the judgment  

(extracted in prayer clause (a) above) would appear to give the impression that  

all counsel before the Court had made the same submission, though each of  

the arguing counsel had urged distinct submissions.  It has been submitted that  

Ms Jaising has a standing of over five decades at the Bar and that her track  

record would indicate anything but a desire to denigrate the judiciary.   

3 Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

State of Maharashtra opposed the application.  Learned counsel submitted that  

each one of the submissions attributed to Ms Jaising was in fact urged by her  

in the course of the proceedings. Mr Rohatgi drew the attention of the Court to  

prayer clause (c) of the Miscellaneous Application by which the records of the  

meeting of the Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 25 June 2014  

are sought to be summoned to ascertain the reasons for the transfer of Judge  

Utpat, and to ascertain whether the consent of this Court was obtained (and  

whether it was kept informed of his proposed transfer). Mr Rohatgi submitted  

that prayer (c) is indicative of the fact that the Miscellaneous Application has

4    

not been filed to pursue her own interest as counsel practicing before this Court  

but to revive the controversy which has been settled by the judgment of this  

Court.  

4 Faced with the objection raised by Mr Rohatgi in regard to prayer clause  

(c) of the application, Dr Singhvi submitted in the course of his rejoinder that  

the prayer is being given up. It would be necessary to record Mr Rohatgi’s  

submission that if, as submitted by Dr Singhvi, the inclusion of prayer clause (c)  

was inadvertent, the statement that the prayer is being given up ought to have  

been made before submissions commenced, prior to an objection being raised  

on his behalf.  

5 The first aspect of the matter which needs to be noted is that paragraph  

75 of the judgment records the submission which was urged by the applicant  

namely, that contempt notices should be issued to the Administrative  

Committee of the High Court.  That such a submission was made is not in  

dispute. In fact in paragraph 9.3 of the Miscellaneous Application, the applicant  

has repeated the submission, reiterating that it was urged before this Court.  

Prayer clause (c) of the application as it was originally filed was based on that  

submission.   

6 The application proceeds on the basis that the observations which were  

made in regard to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors attach to the

5    

applicant personally. In paragraphs 76 and 78, this Court has adverted to “the  

conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors” (emphasis supplied). If the  

applicant identifies with the intervenor, that is a matter of perception for counsel.  

The observations of the Court advert to the conduct of the petitioners and  

intervenors.  The findings of this Court are based on what was argued during  

the course of the hearing.  

7 The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.  

      .................................................CJI  

           [Dipak Misra]      

                                                     .....................................................J  

          [A M Khanwilkar]      

                                                     .....................................................J  

                  [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]    New Delhi;  September 26, 2018