REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2016

Suraz India Trust … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI

1. The application for permission to appear and argue in person is

allowed.

2. When the instant writ petition originally came up for hearing on

27.3.2017, this Court passed the following order:

“1. Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya  has  entered  appearance  on  behalf  of  the petitioner.  He is not a qualified advocate, but he appears in this case in-person, on behalf of the Suraz India Trust, in his capacity as its Chairman.  We have had the opportunity to hear him on some occasions.   In  the  above  view  of  the  matter,  the  Registry  was required to furnish to this Court, details of all the petitions filed by Suraz  India  Trust.   In  compliance  thereof,  the  same  have  been provided to us, in a separate compilation.

2. One set of the aforesaid compilation has been handed over to Mr. Daiya in the Court today.  We would request him to respond to the same, so as to enable us to determine whether he should be permitted  to  file  petitions  in  public  interest,  on  account  of  the apparent indication in the compilation furnished to him, that he has never succeeded in any petition despite the long list of cases filed on behalf of Suraz India Trust.   He may respond, within four weeks from today.

3. Post of hearing on 24th April, 2017.” (emphasis is ours)

3. It is necessary to record, that the details of all the petitions, filed by

Suraz India Trust, were placed on the record of this case, by the Registry,

on the asking of the Chief Justice (in his administrative capacity).  The

information  had  been  sought  by  him,  because  on  earlier  occasions,

petitions filed by Suraz India Trust (- all raising causes in public interest),

were found to be devoid of any merit, and were summarily dismissed.  A

brief summary thereof, is being extracted hereunder:

“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PIL (WRIT) SECTION

The status of matters filed by Suraz India Trust is given below:

Sl.  No.

Nature of Matter

Date of Filing

Relief Sought Status/ Remarks

1 (i) W.P.(C) No.  136/2009

26.3.2009 (a) Direct  the  respondent Election Commission of India to follow the mandatory provisions of rule 49-B(1)  of the Rules of 1961  meant  for  preparation  of balloting unit of voting machine in  the  forthcoming  MP election of  2009  containing  such particulars  and  such  language which may enable the Elector to formally  express  his  choice  by ballot  in  case  he  decides  to refrain from voting

Dismissed  on  4.5.2009

(ii) R.P.(C) No. 1041/2009 in W.P.(C) No.  136/2009

19.5.2009 (a) The order impugned dated 4.5.2009 may kindly be recalled and  reviewed,  and  the  written submissions  may   kindly   be

Dismissed  on  15.9.2009

2

ordered  to  be  taken  on  record and  the  same  may  kindly  be ordered  to  be  treated  as  part and parcel of the review petition, and  the  notice  may  kindly  be issued  to  the  Election Commission  as  the  onus  to prove their action shift upon the respondent in view of the settled proposition of law laid down in the  cases  and  as  averred hereinabove  in  para  6(E),  and the writ petition may kindly be ordered  to  be  tagged  and adjudicated  with  the  Writ Petition No. 161 of 2004 (PUCL & anr. vs. UOI & anr.)

2 (i) W.P.(C) No.  241/2009

4.5.2009 (a) Declare  the  provisions  of rule 2(1)(c), 4(1), 5(3), 5(5)(ii), 6, 7(1)(b), 9(1), 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of  the  Rajasthan  Right  to Information  (High  Court  & Subordinate Court) Rules, 2006 as  ultra  virus  same  being inconsistent  with  and  in contravention  to  the  provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Dismissed  as  withdrawn  on  14.9.2009

3 (i) W.P.(C) No.  280/2009

25.6.2009 (a) Declare  the  provisions  of Rule  3  of  Order  XL  of  the Supreme Court Rules,  1966 as ultra-virus  same  being inconsistent  with  and  in contravention  to  the  provisions of  Article  137 and 145 so also Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Dismissed  on  19.10.2009

3

(ii) R.P.(C) No. 884/2010 In  W.P.(C) No.  280/2009

4.11.2009 (a) The order impugned dated 19.10.2009  may  kindly  be recalled  and reviewed,  and the writ  petition  may  kindly  be adjudicated  on  merits  and demerits  of  the  case  after hearing both the parties

Dismissed  on  2.2.2010

4 (i) W.P.(C) No.  439/2009

19.9.2009 (a) Quash and set  aside  the order/circular  No. F.20/Judl./2009   dated  5th May,  2009  of  Ld.  Registrar (Judl.), Supreme Court of India, being violative of Article 14 and 32 of the Constitution of India

Dismissed  on  10.9.2010

(ii) R.P.(C) No. 17/2011 in  W.P.(C) No.  439/2009

17.9.2010 (a) The  Order  impugned dated 10.9.2010 may kindly be recalled  and reviewed,  and the writ  petition  may  kindly  be decided after issuing the notice to  the  respondent  and  after hearing both the parties on the merits and demerits of the case in the interest of justice

Dismissed  on  2.2.2011

5 (i) W.P. (C)  469 of 2009

10.9.2009 (a) Declare  the  section  47 and  128  of  the  Criminal Procedure  Amendment  Act, 1923  as  ultra-virus  and unconstitutional

Disposed of on  6.12.2010

(ii) R.P.(C) No. 1030/2011 In W.P.(C) No.  469/2009

3.1.2011 (a) The order impugned dated 6.12.2010  may  kindly  be recalled  and reviewed,  and the writ  petition  may  kindly  be decided after issuing the notice to  the  respondent  and  after hearing both the parties on the merits and demerits of the case in the interest of justice

Dismissed  on  26.4.2011

4

(iii) I.A. D.No.  92906 of  2016    (Application  for  adjudication  of PIL Petition No. 10605 of  2015) pending before Delhi  High Court in  W.P. (C)  469/2009

13.12.2016 (a) The  AC  may  kindly  be appointed  in  light  of  the  order dt. 6.12.2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Lodged vide Order dt.  18.1.2017  of Ld.  Registrar  J-I

(iv) I.A. No. 4  (Appeal by way  of I.A. against  Ld. Registrar's  Order) & I.A.  No. 5  (Condonation  of delay) in  W.P. (C) 469 of  2009  (dismissed  matter)

6.2.2017 (a) This  appeal  may  kindly  be accepted  and  allowed  and  the impugned  order  dt.  18.1.2017 passed by  the  Registrar  (J-I)  may kindly  be  quashed  and  set  aside and  the  above  writ  petition  may kindly  be  ordered  to  be  placed before  the  Hon'ble  Division  Court as provided under the provisions of Sub Rule  (1)  and (2)  of  Rule  1 of Order  XXXVIII  of  the  Supreme Court  Rules,  2013  to  protect  the fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined under  Article  32 of  the Constitution of  India  and to meet the ends of justice

Pending for  listing

6 (i) W.P. (C)  204/2010

10.9.2009 (a) Adjudicate  the  legal questions  raised in  para  3  of  the writ petition;

(b) Reconsider  and  review  the law laid down by 9 Judges Bench passed  in  the  case  of  Supreme Court  Advocate-on-Record Association  Vs.  Union  of  India  & Ors. (reported in (1993) 4 SCC 441) so  also  in  the  case  of  Special Reference No. 1 of  1998 (reported in (1998) 7 SCC 739);

Dismissed  on 7.1.2013

5

(ii) Application for restoration of Writ  Petition

4.2.2013 (a)   Application for restoration may  kindly  be  accepted  and allowed  and  writ  petition  may kindly be restored to its original number

Lodged vide Ld.  Registrar's  order dated 23.2.2013

(iii) Appeal  against the  registrar order dated  23.2.2013  (I.A. No.5)

1.4.2013 (a) Application may kindly be accepted  and  allowed  and  writ petition  no.  204/2010  may kindly be restored.

Dismissed  on  3.7.2015

(iv) Contempt  Petition (C) D  20400/2013

5.7.2013 (a) to direct the Contemnor to make compliance  of  the  orders dated 4.4.2011 and 9.11.2012

Lodged vide Ld.  Registrar's  order dated 27.7.2013

(v) Appeal by  way of I.A.  against  registrar order dated  27.7.2013 (IA  No.7)

27.8.2013 (a) Appeal  may  kindly  be accepted  and  allowed  and  the contempt petition may kindly be posted  for  preliminary  hearing before the Hon'ble Court.

Dismissed  on  3.7.2015

(vi) Contempt  petition (C) D  22286 /2014

11.7.2014 (a) Direct  the  Contemnors not to interfere with the judicial proceedings  of  the  Hon'ble Supreme  Court  and  not  to obstruct  the  administration  of justice;

Lodged vide Ld.  Registrar's  order dated 16.8.2014

(vii) Appeal  by way of IA  against  registrar order dated  16.8.2014  (I.A. No.9)

27.9.2014 (a) appeal  may  kindly  be accepted  and  allowed  and  the contempt petition may kindly be posted  for  preliminary  hearing before the Hon'ble Court.

Dismissed  on  3.7.2015

(viii) R.P.(C)  3486/2015

27.7.2015 (a) Order  impugned  dated 3.7.2015 may kindly be recalled and  reviewed,  and  the  writ petition may kindly be restored

Dismissed  on  15.12.2015

6

and be adjudicated by a larger Bench  in  compliance  to  the orders  dated  4.4.2011  and 9.11.2012  passed  by  Hon'ble Court.

(ix) Contempt  Petition (C)  D2868/ 2016

22.1.2016 (a) Direct  the  respondent Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court  of  India  to  make compliance of  the orders dated 4.4.2011 and 9.11.2012 in their letter and spirit.

Lodged vide Ld.  Registrar's  order dated 9.2.2016

(x) I.A No. 1  (Appeal by  way of I.A.  against Ld.  Registrar's  Order dated  9.2.2016)  along with  application for the  condonation  of delay

29.2.2016 (a) Appeal  may  kindly  be accepted  and  allowed  and  the contempt petition may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Court as  provided  under  the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975.

Dismissed  on  20.3.2017

7 (i) W.P. (C)  209/2015

26.5.2015 (a) to  declare  the Constitution  (Ninety  Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National  Judicial  Appointments Commission  Act,  2014  being unconstitutional and ultra vires;

Disposed of on  16.12.2015

(ii) Application for recalling of order dated  12.5.2015

18.3.2015 (a) Recalling  of  the  order dated 12.5.2015 may kindly be allowed  and  the  matter  may kindly  be  referred  to  the  large bench

Lodged vide Ld.  Registrar's  order dated 4.6.2015

(iii) Appeal by  way of I.A.  against  registrar order dated  4.6.2015 (I.A.  

9.6.2015 (a) Appeal  may  kindly  be accepted  and  allowed  and  the I.A. for Recalling of Order dated 12.5.2015  may  kindly  be  for placed before the Hon'ble Court as  provided  under  the

Disposed of on  15.7.2015

7

No.4) provisions of Rule 1(2) of Order XXXVIII  of  the  Supreme  Court Rules, 2013

(iv)  Application  for recalling of order dated  15.7.2015

3.8.2015 (a) Recalling  of  order  dated 15.7.2015  may  kindly  be allowed,  and  the  matter  may kindly be referred to the larger Bench. Or in the alternative, the matter  may  kindly  be  placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for  constitution  of  Bench  of  of appropriate strength.

Lodged vide Ld.  Registrar's  order dated 12.8.2015

(v) Appeal by  way of I.A.  against  registrar order dated  12.8.2015  (I.A. No.5)

31.8.2015 (a) Appeal  may  kindly  be accepted  and  allowed  and  the I.A. for Recalling of Order dated 15.7.2015  may  kindly  be  for placed before the Hon'ble Court as  provided  under  the provisions of Rule 1(2) of Order XXXVIII  of  the Supreme Court, 2013

Dismissed  on  17.2.2017

(vi) R.P. (C)  83/2016

16.11.2015 (a) The  judgement  impugned dated 16.10.2015 may kindly be recalled  and reviewed,  and the matter may kindly be referred to the  larger  Bench  for  deciding the controversy as to which one of  the  two  methods  i.e. Constitutional  Method  OR Collegium Method will continue after  declaring  NJAC unconstitutional and void.

Dismissed  on  1.3.2016

8 (i) W.P. (C)  303/2010

10.9.2009 (a) Reconsider  the  law  laid down  in  the  case  of  K. Veeraswami (reported in 1991(3) Judgement Today p. 198) by the larger  bench  in  the  changed circumstances.

Dismissed  on  10.9.2010

8

(ii) R.P. (C)  1994/2010

14.12.2010 (a) Order  impugned  dated 10.9.2010  may  kindly  be recalled  and reviewed,  and the writ  petition  may  kindly  be decided after issuing the notice to  the  respondent  and  after hearing both the parties on the merits and demerits of the case in the interest of justice.

Dismissed  on  14.12.2010

9 (i) W.P. (C)  D.No. 2910 of  2016

(ii)  I.A. No. 1  (Appeal by  way of IA  against Ld.  Registrar's  Order dt.  2.7.2016)

22.1.2016

22.7.2016

(a) Set  aside  the  order  dt. 7.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 204 of 2010 (Suraz India Trust  versus  Union  of  India  & Another)  by rectifying the error ex debito justitiae;

(a1) This appeal may kindly be accepted  and  allowed  and  the impugned  order  dt.  2.7.2016 passed  by  the  Registrar  (J-I) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the above writ petition may  kindly  be  ordered  to  be placed  before  the  Hon'ble Division  Court  as  provided under  the  provisions  of  Sub Rule 1(1) of Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court  Rules,  2013 to protect the fundamental right of the  petitioner  enshrined  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  and to  meet  the  ends  of justice

Lodged on  2.7.2016

I.A. 1 was  lastly listed before the  Court on  27.2.2017  and  directed to  be listed on 10.4.2017

10 (i) W.P. (C) D.  No. 41438 of  2016

13.12.2016 (a) Set-aside  the  order  dt. 1.3.2016  passed  in  Review Petition (C) No. 83 of 2016 titled Suraz  India  Trust  vs.  Union of India  by rectifying the error  ex debito justitiae

Lodged vide Order dt.  20.1.2017  of Ld.  Registrar  J-I

11 (i) W.P. (C) 8.2.2016 (a) Direct  the  respondent Dismissed  

9

210 of 2016  (Main matter:  W.P. (C) 295  of 2016)

Union Law Minister to abide by the  oath  taken  by  him  and further to maintain and sustain the oath taken by the President of India

on  20.3.2017

12 (i) W.P.(C) No.  880/2016

20.11.2015 (a) Declare  the  provisions  of section  3  of  the  Judges (Enquiry)  Act,  1968  as unconstitutional  and  void;  the same being inconsistent and in contravention  to  the  provisions of  Article  124(4)  of  the Constitution of India

Listed on  20.1.2017.

Next date  of hearing:  27.3.2017

The matters summarized above, were taken up for hearing, in 64 different

proceedings.  The summary extracted hereinabove, affirms the position,

that Suraz India Trust, has not been successful in any matter.

4. After  the  hearing  of  this  case  on 27.3.2017,  the  instant  petition

came up for consideration on 24.4.2017.  During the course of hearing on

24.4.2017, Suraz India Trust was represented by its Chairman, Mr. Rajiv

Daiya.  We granted him liberty, to make a voluntary statement to this

Court,  if  he  considered  appropriate,  that  Suraz  India  Trust  would

henceforth, not file any petition urging a cause in public interest.  This

offer was extended to him, because it prima facie appeared to the Court,

that the litigation initiated by the Trust was thoughtless and frivolous.

We had made it clear to Mr. Rajiv Daiya, that in case he made such a

statement, the matter would be closed, and assured him, that no further

consequences would follow.  Alternatively, he was asked to file a response,

to establish the bona fides of the Trust.  On his desire to file a reply, he

10

was afforded an opportunity to do so, by 28.4.2017.  In fact, this was the

second  opportunity  granted  to  him.   On  the  first  occasion,  i.e.  on

27.3.2017, he was required to file his response, within four weeks.  It is

obvious, that there was ample opportunity for the petitioner, to reflect on

the liberty granted to it, to obtain advice and counsel, and thereupon, to

take a conscious decision, one way or the other.

5. When the matter  was taken up for hearing at  11.30 A.M. today,

Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya  stated,  that  he  would  assist  this  Court,  without  any

written response.  He therefore took a conscious decision, not to adopt the

course suggested to him, by this Court on 27.3.2017.  At the very outset,

it was acknowledged by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, that the factual position referred

to in the compilation furnished to him (as detailed in para 3 above) was

correct.   While  assisting  this  Court,  the  petitioner  referred  to  some

documents which had been placed on the record of this case, and to other

additional  documents,  which the petitioner  furnished to  us during the

course of hearing.  We accepted all the documents, and agreed to hear

Mr. Daiya.

6. The  first  letter  brought  to  our  notice,  dated  20.1.2011,  was

addressed by the  Under  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  India  to  this

Court.  The text of the aforesaid communication is reproduced below:

“I  am  directed  to  forward  herewith  (in  original)  a representation dated 27.12.2010, along with its enclosures, of Shri Rajiv  Daiya,  Chairman,  Suraz  India Trust,  Rajmata Ji  Ka Nohra, Near  Fateh  Sagar,  Jodhpur,  received  through  the  President Secretariat, vide their letter no. P1/E/0601110044, dated 6.1.2011, for appropriate action.

11

2. It is requested that the grievances/complaints under reference may  be  looked  into  at  the  earliest  under  intimation  to  the applicant.”

It  is  important  to  indicate,  that  through the  above  correspondence,  a

representation dated 27.12.2010, filed by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, in his capacity

as  Chairman,  Suraz  India  Trust,  was  forwarded  to  this  Court  for

appropriate  action.   Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya,  also placed reliance on a similar

letter, dated 13.2.2013.  The text thereof is also reproduced below:

“I am directed to forward herewith a representation dated 5.11.2013 (in original) received from Shri Rajiv Daiya, Chairman, Suraz India Trust, Raj Mataji Ka Nohra, Near Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan for appropriate action.

2. It is requested that the grievance/complaint under reference may be looked into and action taken as deemed appropriate under intimation to the applicant at an early date.”

The instant communication was forwarded by the Deputy Secretary to the

Government of India, to this Court, for appropriate action.  The action

sought was based, again on a representation (dated 5.11.2013) filed by

Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman of Suraz India Trust.

7. It  was  the  pointed  contention  of  Mr.  Daiya,  that  none  of  the

representations, filed by him, was appropriately dealt with by this Court.

In order to demonstrate his dissatisfaction, in the manner in which this

Court  -  on the  judicial  side,  and on  the  administrative  side  –  by  the

Registry, was dealing with his petitions and representations, he invited

our  attention  to  a  communication  dated  27.12.2010,  which  he  had

addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, and to all the then sitting

12

Judges of this Court, in his capacity as Chairman, Suraz India Trust.  It

was pointed out, that the aforesaid communication was forwarded to the

residential addresses of Hon’ble Judges, so as to invite their attention to

his complaints, while they were relatively free, to visualize his grievances

and protestation.  In the communication dated 27.12.2010, Suraz India

Trust, demanded action against the Registrar (J) – Shri T. Sivdasan and

the Assistant  Registrar  PIL  (Writ)  –  Shri  Vimal  Jaitely.   The first  four

paragraphs of the instant communication, narrate the anxiety of Mr. Rajiv

Daiya.  The same are reproduced hereinbelow:

“1. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner served a Notice upon  Shri  T.  Sivadasan,  the  Registrar  (Judicial)  and  Shri  Vimal Jaitely,  the  Assistant  Registrar  PIL  (Writ)  on  8.10.2010  through speed  post  for  contempt  of  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  creating obstruction  in  getting  justice  as  well  as  disrespecting  the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Nilima Priyadarishini vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 2021); (2) Prem Chand vs. Excise Commissioner, UP (AIR 1963 SC 996); and (3) M.V. Vali Pero vs. Fernandeo Lopez (AIR 1989 SC 2206) as also for initiating criminal prosecution under Section 210, IPC for making  reports  maliciously  and  contrary  to  law.   A  copy  of  the notice  dated  8.10.2010  is  enclosed  herewith  and  marked  as Annexure-A.

2. That  this  notice  dated  8.10.2010  was  served  upon  Shri  T. Sivadasan and Shri  Vimal  Jaitely  in  personal/individual  capacity with a view to bring into their kind notice about their misconduct and abuse of power and post.  The Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) and while performing their duties as such, have abused the process of law and have acted in contravention to the provisions of the law of the land, and are still acting as if they are above the law and they do not have any faith in the law of the land and our Constitution as well.

3. That  even  when  the  notices  were  served  upon  both  the authorities in their individual capacity and by name, and it is an admitted position that these papers were not sent as a document under the provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 nor the notices

13

served  upon  in  personal  capacity  fall  under  the  category  of documents to be dealt with by the Registry for adjudication after registering  the  documents,  nor  these  are  papers  to  be  denied  to accept  by  the  Registry  which  were  sent  in  personal/individual capacity just to bring into the kind notice about contravention of the law.  The petitioner thought it proper first to apprise the Registrar (J)  and  Assistant  Registrar  PIL  (Writ)  themselves  about  their errors/mistakes through the aforesaid Notice, so that the same may be rectified and may not be repeated in future.  But they have been still  acting in contravention to the provisions of  law in returning these  notices  to  the  petitioner  by  letter  dated  30.10.2010 (dispatched  on  90.11.2010  and  received  on  12.11.2010)  while mentioning  therein  that  the  documents  received  by  post  are  not entertainable  under  Order  X  Rule  6(1)  of  Supreme  Court  Rules, 1966.  Thus, it is height of abuse of power and post so also abuse of process of law.  A copy of the letter dated 30.10.2010 returning the notices  to  the  petitioner  is  enclosed  herewith  and  marked  as Annexure-B.

4. That  it  is  also  very  pertinent  to  mention  here  that  the petitioner  drawn  kind  attention  of  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  by representation dated 2.11.2009 for acting in contravention to the provisions of the law of the land, but the same was never placed before  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice,  so  that  the  petitioner  could  be provided  proper  opportunity  to  plead  the  cases  pending adjudication.   A  copy  of  the  representation  dated  2.11.2010 addressed to the (1) Hon’ble President of India; (2) Hon’ble Prime Minister of India; and (3) Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is enclosed herewith  and  marked  as  Annexure-C.   The  said  representation dated 2.11.2009 was forwarded to the Ministry of Law & Justice, wherefrom the  representation  sent  to  the  Hon’ble  Prime Minister was forwarded in original to the Registrar (Judicial) for redressal of the grievances vide communication dated 13.9.2010, and likewise the representation addressed to Hon’ble President of India was also forwarded in original to the Registrar (Judicial), for redressal of the grievances  vide  communication  dated  20.9.2010,  but  all  in  vein, because this representation was neither put up before the Court for taking judicious note of the same nor the same was placed before the Hon’ble Chief  Justice in the administrative capacity,  and the Registry had sit tight over the said representation.  The copies of the communications  dated  13.9.2010  and  20.9.2010  are  enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-D and Annexure-E respectively.”

(emphasis is ours)

14

8. In order to support the impropriety and wrongfulness expressed in

the letter, dated 27.12.2010, Suraz India Trust had appended a number

of enclosures with its above letter (dated 27.12.2010).  One of the letters

to which our pointed attention was drawn, had been addressed to Smt.

Pratibha Patil - the then President of India.  The subject of the aforesaid

communication reveals, that the same was addressed to the President of

India, besides the Prime Minister of India, and the Chief Justice of India.

This course of action had been adopted, according to the petitioner, to

draw their attention against the Supreme Court of India, for having acted

in  contravention  of  the  law.   The  opening  paragraph  of  the  instant

communication, dated 2.11.2009, depicts the crux of the grievance of the

Suraz India Trust.  The same is reproduced below:

“1. That at the very outset, it is humbly submitted that when a person violates the provisions of the law of the land, it amounts to civil/criminal wrong, but when the Courts of law does not follow the provisions of law enacted for adjudication of the matters of litigants and  commits  judicial  dishonesty,  what  is  the  remedy  to  such  a victim? Nothing can be more serious than such judicial dishonesty. There are various orders of Courts and Competent Authorities in the matters of petitioner which are not being complied with resulting into contempt of Court, but of no avail.”

(emphasis is ours)

9. Having understood the tenor and text  of  the grievances of  Suraz

India  Trust,  it  is  also  necessary  for  us  to  observe,  that  disparaging

remarks were contained therein, not only with reference to Judges of the

Rajasthan High Court, but also with reference to Judges of this Court.

With reference to the three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, besides

the  Chief  Justice,  the  views  of  Suraz  India  Trust,  are  contained  in

15

paragraph  9  (of  the  communication  dated  27.12.2010).   The  same  is

essential  to understand the tenor of the grievance of the Trust,  and is

therefore being extracted hereunder:

“9. That it is humbly submitted that it appears that the Registrar (Judicial)  Shri T. Sivdasan and Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) Shri Vimal Jaitely have come in rescue of judiciary of Rajasthan.  The petitioner  has  filed  a  Contempt  Petition  against  the  then  Chief Justice  of  Rajasthan  Shri  Narayan  Roy  and  three  Judges  of Rajasthan High Court  which was  diarized at  Diary  no.  28301 of 2010 on dated 7.9.2010.  But the same is not being placed before the  Bench  for  its  adjudication  deliberately,  and  possibility  of rejection of the same on technical grounds by the Registry cannot be ruled out, even when the contempt is said to be committed against the Court and it is between the Court and contemnor.  On the one hand,  the  contempt  petition  is  not  being  placed  before  the appropriate  bench  for  adjudication  and  on  the  other  hand,  the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur is not issuing notice even after hearing the matter various times in contempt petition no. 1/2006 (Rajiv  Daiya  vs.  Umesh  Garg  &  another)  nor  the  subordinate judiciary (presently pending before the Judge, Economic Offences, Jodhpur) is getting compliance of summons (even after the specific orders of High Court in Cr. Misc. Petition no. 626/2001 Rajiv Daiya vs. State of Rajasthan) which is lying pending at the stage where it was in the year 1999, nor anything is being done from year 2004 in criminal trial initiated on the complaint of the petitioner side in Cr. Case no. 210/2004 (State vs. Chandraveer Singh & Ors.) pending before Munsif & Judicial Magistrate no. 3, Jodhpur.  It can safely be inferred from the above facts and circumstances that the judiciary of Rajasthan is in collusion with the Registry of Hon’ble Supreme Court which is waiting for end of litigations filed by the petitioner and pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so that they can proceed thereafter in above narrated pending matters and pass the orders in these cases according to their whims and fancies. Therefore, these matters are almost kept in abeyance from last so many  years,  and  nothing  is  being  done  in  these  cases.   This corroborates and supports the allegations of the petitioner against the High Court of Rajasthan and its subordinate judiciary so also the Registry of Supreme Court which is vehemently prejudiced to the petitioner.”

(emphasis is ours)

16

10. Insofar as Judges of this Court are concerned, the position adopted

by Suraz India Trust is apparent from the factual narration recorded in

the first enclosure (to the letter dated 27.12.2010), dated 8.10.2010.  The

instant  communication,  dated  8.10.2010,  was  addressed  to  Shri  T.

Sivdasan, Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Vimal Jaitely, Assistant Registrar,

PIL (Writ).  Suraz India Trust, in the above letter, indicated the details of

various  matters  in  which  the  Trust  has  approached  this  Court.   The

remarks  with  reference  to  this  Court,  were  recorded  in  paragraph  7

thereof, which is reproduced below:

“7. That the applicant apprehended that he cannot ventilate his grievance against the Justice Imparting Agency, and therefore, he was hesitant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is clear from  the  notice  dated  25.2.2009  (annexed  with  complaint  dated 2.11.2009 at pages 11 to 13), he had made a specific submission that he cannot get justice from Hon’ble Supreme Court, Paras 1 to 6 of the said notice dated 25.2.2009 are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:

“1. That  at  the  very  outset,  it  is  humbly  submitted  that under the legal framework of the Constitution, the People of India govern themselves through the Functionary of Executive as per the statutory provisions promulgated under the system as enshrined in our Constitution, and the judiciary has been bestowed  upon  the  power  to  adjudicate  the  disputes  and controversies brought before it, as per the provisions of law. The Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 32 and 226 vest the right to test the legislative law at the anvil of Chapter III  of  the  Constitution  of  India  under  extra  ordinary jurisdiction meaning thereby that the Constitution of India is supreme in our country, and the Judges and Chief Justice of High Courts take oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land while entering into their offices.

2. That since the applicant has moved the Mercy Petition to the Hon’ble President of India when he has experienced time and again that the higher judicial officers have come in rescue of lower judicial officers, and the applicant being the victim of

17

judicature of Rajasthan as he is victim of all the tiers of the judiciary of Rajasthan which includes the Judicial Magistrate, Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional District Judge/District Judge, Dy. Registrar/Addl. Registrar,  Registrar  General,  High  Court  Judges  including Chief Justice, and with this view, he has not approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court because there is every likelihood that now  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  may  come  in  rescue  of Judicature of Rajasthan.  To make it more clear your attention is  drawn that  there  are  three  Judges presently  holding the office in the Hon’ble Supreme Court who have relation not only from Rajasthan but from Jodhpur, and as experienced so far by the applicant he has reason to apprehend that he cannot get justice from Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Taking this view into matter,  the  applicant  considered  it  appropriate  to  make  a complaint in the form of Mercy Petition so as to be considered by the Hon’ble President of India himself being the Appointing and  Terminating  Authority  and  with  further  view  that  the applicant would be provided ample opportunity of hearing as he  has  bulky  material  so  as  to  prove  his  contentions  by making  order  for  enquiry  as  was  conducted  in  the  case  of Hon’ble Justice of Kolkata High Court Shri Somesh Mitra, and thereafter,  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  of  India  Shri  K.G. Balakrishnan has recommended his case for impeachment.

3. That  the  applicant  has  not  approached  the  Hon’ble Supreme  Court  on  yet  another  ground  that  the  applicant sought  various  information  from  the  Public  Information Officer,  Rajasthan High Court,  Jodhpur,  wherein there  is  a non-responding attitude of the First Appellate Authority under RTI Act.  The applicant moved to the Hon’ble President of India so that the record of the High Court may be called that may prove the contentions of the applicant, so as to make out he (sic)  of  contempt of  Hon’ble Supreme Court with incomplete material in aforementioned circumstances.

4. That it is out of place to mention here that the applicant has a reasonable apprehension that the Ministry of Law and Justice is trying to suppress the complaint of the applicant so as to avoid enquiry into the matter allowing the applicant to put up the material  on record as a piece of  evidence.   The applicant  has  experienced  that  higher  judicial  officers  have come in rescue of lower judicial officers, but it is experience for the  first  time  that  the  President  Secretariat  so  also  the Ministry  of  Law & Justice  has come in rescue of  Judiciary which has drafted the bill for making complaints against the

18

Judges.   Whether  the  action  of  bringing  the  said  bill  into Parliament is merely an illusion?

5. That the notice of contempt petition upon six Judges of Rajasthan High Court including the Chief Justice is merely an iceberg seen out of the water to your goodself, there is a very big piece of ice floating beneath the water surface which has remained  unseen  and  if  come  into  limelight,  may  prove  a BURNING SCAM of the country and the name of your goodself may  found  place  in  the  pages  of  the  history.   Admittedly, neither your goodself nor the Ministry of Law and Justice is competent to make any interference in the judiciary which is clear from the order of dismissal dated 5.2.2009.  Under such circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the Mercy Petition  dated  29.9.2008  and  Complaints  dated  14.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 deserves to be either placed before the Hon’ble President of India for decision or in the alternative, the same may  be  forwarded  to  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India which  is  competent  to  proceed  into  the  matter  under  the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution of India.  In case of any hindrance and obstruction on your part will certainly amount  to  obstruction  in  administration  of  justice  and punishable for contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. That it is a case where the faith of applicant has been lost in judiciary/justice imparting agency, and it is the pious duty of the President Secretariat being the part and parcel of the Parliament to honour the Sovereign of the Nation ‘We the people  of  India’.   Therefore,  the  Mercy  Petition  dated 29.9.2008, Complaints dated 14.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 may either be put up before the Hon’ble President of India or in the alternative to forward the same to the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the recommendation to place the same before the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India he being the head of the Judiciary for taking such decisions in light of the law laid down in the case of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India by Constitutional  Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court (reported in JT 1991 (3) SC 198).  If the applicant still remains unheard, the President Secretariat the more particularly Your goodself will be solely responsible for the consequences.  The concerned abstract of the law laid down in the case of K. Veeraswami is reproduced for ready reference:-

“Undoubtedly,  respect  for  the  judiciary  and  its public  credibility  and dignity  has  to  be  maintained  in order to ensure respect for the Judges in public and also

19

for  the  decisions  rendered  by  the  Judges…   If  these things are allowed to go unnoticed it will create serious inroad  on  the  dignity,  respect  and  credibility  and integrity of the high office which a Judge of the Supreme Court and of  the High Court occupies resulting in the erosion on the dignity and respect for the high office of the Judges in the estimation of the public.  As has been suggested  by  my  learned  Brother  Shetty,  J.  that  the President is  given the power  to  appoint  the Judges of Supreme Court as well as of the High Court by warrant under his hand and seal and similarly even after passing an address by both the Houses of the Parliament in the manner provided in Article 124, clauses (4) and (5) and (sic)  placed  before  the  President,  a  Judge  cannot  be removed from his office unless an order to that effect is passed  by  the  Parliament….   In  order  to  adequately protect  a  Judge  from  frivolous  prosecution  and unnecessary harassment the President will  consult the Chief Justice of India who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the Judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter.”

(emphasis is ours)

A perusal of the highlighted portion of the letter reproduced above reveals,

that the Trust had cast serious aspersions against three Judges of the

Rajasthan High Court, besides its Chief Justice.  It is also apparent from

the extract reproduced above, that Suraz India Trust had also allegedly

issued notices of contempt, to six Judges of the above High Court, besides

its Chief Justice.  This vilification extended to all levels of judicial officers

in the State of Rajasthan, including District Judges, Additional District

Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrates

and  Judicial  Magistrates.   The  condemnation  of  the  Trust,  included

officers  of  Rajasthan  High  Court,  including  its  Registrar  General,

Additional Registrars and Deputy Registrars.  The Chairman of the Trust

20

had written the above letter to the then President of India, by assuming

the position, that he did not expect any justice from the Supreme Court,

as there were then, three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, in this

Court.  In this veiled narration, the Trust clearly identified the concerned

Judges of this Court.  The denunciation in the above letter, extended even

to the Ministry of Law and Justice, as the Chairman of the Suraz India

Trust  felt,  that  it  would  rescue  the  judiciary,  by  suppressing  its

complaints.

11. The presentation of Suraz India Trust, during the course of hearing,

through its Chairman - Mr. Rajiv Daiya, was indeed disturbing, in view of

the insinuations levelled not  only  against  six Judges of  the Rajasthan

High Court, besides its Chief Justice, but also against three Judges of

this Court, besides its Chief Justice.  Mr. Rajiv Daiya was very candid in

explaining to this Court, that the factual position depicted in the latter

part  of  the  above  letter  (which  has  been  extracted  hereinabove),  was

indeed the truth, and emerged out of his actual and personal experiences.

12. In order to demonstrate, the truthfulness of the position expressed

in the foregoing paragraph, Mr. Daiya placed reliance on an order passed

by this Court, in Suraz India Trust vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) no.

204 of 2010), wherein, a two-Judge Division Bench of this Court inter alia

observed in its motion-Bench order dated 4.4.2011, as under:

“13. At this juncture, Mr. Ganguli as well as Mr. Vahanvati have submitted  that  even  at  the  stage  of  preliminary  hearing  for admission of the petition, the matter requires to be heard by a larger

21

Bench as this matter has earlier been dealt with by a three Judges Bench and involves very complicated legal issues.”

(emphasis is ours)

It was the submission of Mr. Daiya, that the Division Bench dealing with

the  above  writ  petition,  filed  by  Suraz  India  Trust,  had  framed  ten

important  issues  for  adjudication,  on  the  subject  of  appointment  of

Judges  under  Article  124(2)  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   It  was

submitted, that given the importance of the issues framed, the two-Judge

Division Bench which had heard the matter, had expressed the view, that

the matter required to be heard by a larger Bench.  It was also pointed

out during the course of hearing (as was indicated in the order, itself),

that the matter had earlier been heard by a three-Judge Bench.  It was

submitted, that when the same case came up for hearing on 9.11.2012, it

was placed before a three-Judge Bench (including, the then Chief Justice

of India).  Noticing the fact, that in the earlier order dated 4.4.2011, the

writ  petition had been referred to a larger Bench (see,  order extracted

above), the Bench hearing the matter on 9.11.2012, directed the files of

the case to be placed before the Chief Justice, for appropriate orders.  It

was the submission of Mr. Daiya, that the earlier judgments, on the issue,

were rendered by a Bench of nine Judges, and accordingly, in terms of the

order passed by the Division Bench on 4.4.2011, it ought to have been

placed  for  consideration,  before  a  still  larger  Bench.   It  was  the

submission of Mr. Daiya, that despite the above clear position, the Chief

Justice,  exercising  his  administrative  discretion,  posted  the  matter  for

22

hearing,  yet  again,  before  a  three-Judge  Division  Bench.   It  was

submitted, that the three-Judge Bench constituted by the Chief Justice

(in  furtherance  of  the  order,  dated  4.4.2011),  heard  the  matter  on

7.1.2013, and dismissed the same, by passing the following order:

“Having  considered  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel, with regard to the maintainability of  the  writ  petition  and  the  prayers  made  therein,  we  are  not inclined  to  entertain  the  writ  petition,  which  is  accordingly dismissed.”

13. It was submitted, on the basis of the factual position recorded in the

preceding paragraph, that the posting of the case before a three-Judge

Bench, by the then Chief Justice, was in clear disrespect, disregard and

derogation, of the order dated 4.4.2011.  It was submitted, that the writ

petition filed by Suraz India Trust,  wherein, ten important issues were

crystalized for consideration was summarily dismissed on 7.1.2013, by

the  three-Judge  Bench.   This  determination,  by  the  members  of  the

Division Bench, was attacked by Suraz India Trust, as being in disregard

of all norms of law and propriety.

14. It  was the submission of  Mr.  Daiya,  that  all  further  actions and

endeavours adopted at the behest of the Trust, were stonewalled.  It was

explained, that all these efforts of the Trust were only aimed at seeking

the enforcement of the order dated 4.4.2011. The actions of the Trust, as

indicated above, included Contempt Petition (C) no. 20400 of 2013, which

was filed by Suraz India Trust, against the then Chief Justice of India, as

the contemnor.  It was pointed out, that the Registry of this Court unfairly

23

lodged/filed the above contempt petition.  The Registry, it was submitted,

was duty bound to place the same for consideration on the judicial side.

The Trust, therefore filed Contempt Petition (C) no. 22286/2014, against

the  then  Secretary  General  of  this  Court,  as  the  contemnor.   It  was

pointed  out,  that  the  above  contempt  petition  was  also  unfairly

lodged/filed, and was not placed before the Court, for its consideration on

the judicial side.  It was submitted, that repeated endeavours of Suraz

India  Trust,  on the  administrative  side,  and on its  judicial  side,  were

treated  with  abject  apathy,  and  led  to  prompt  rejection,  without  any

consideration.  It was pointed out, that all the efforts of the Suraz India

Trust,  were  completely  devoted  to  public  interest.   It  was  also  the

contention of Mr. Daiya, that none of the matters filed before this Court

by Suraz India Trust, was ever decided on merits.  It was submitted, that

on all occasions (while dealing with matters, filed by the Trust), this Court

had expressed the view, that it was not inclined to entertain the matter,

and therefore, rejected the same.  It was submitted, that it was in the

above  background,  that  Suraz  India  Trust  had  had  to  approach  this

Court, in all the 64 matters.

15. Mr. Rajiv Daiya while concluding his submissions contended, that

he should be provided assistance of an amicus curiae, so that, the true

and meaningful efforts of Suraz India Trust, can be highlighted before this

Court, so that the legitimacy of its causes, can best be appreciated.  By

the time Mr.  Daiya concluded his submissions,  it  was 1.00 P.M.  Mr.

24

Daiya had taken over one and half hours, of this Court’s judicial time.

And  at  that,  of  a  three-Judge  Bench.   Having  heard  him  arguing  in

person, we were individually satisfied, that Mr. Daiya could express his

views clearly, and could explain his position unambiguously.  He could

bring out the nuances of his views, in the manner perceived by him.  He

could also project his insinuations, as he understood them, without any

difficulty.  After concluding his submissions, as have been noticed above,

Mr. Rajiv Daiya made a canny remark - that in his understanding, we

were not inclined to allow him the assistance of an amicus curiae.  The

above remark, confirmed to us, that besides his astuteness, he had the

ability to convey his impressions, without any awkwardness.

16. All that can be said is, that he has understood the position in which

he was placed (consequent upon the issuance of the show cause notice, to

him),  correctly.   Having  heard  Mr.  Daiya  at  considerable  length,  and

keeping in mind the manner in which he assisted us, as also, his vast

experience in appearing before Courts at all levels, we are of the view, that

his request to be provided with a counsel, has necessarily to be declined.

We accordingly decline the same.

17. After we declined the request of Mr. Rajiv Daiya, to be provided with

professional assistance, he made the required undertaking, as a last ditch

effort… and as a desperate final attempt, that Suraz India Trust would

henceforth,  not  file  any  public  interest  litigation.   In  other  words,  he

desired us to accept the liberty  which we had afforded to him, at the

25

outset, after his long-drawn submissions.  Mr. Rajiv Daiya also requested

us, that his statement be so recorded.  We have painstakingly narrated

the  entire  sequence  of  facts,  as  they  unfolded  during  the  course  of

hearing.   We also hereby,  record his undertaking to this Court,  as he

suggested.

18. We shall  now deal  with  the consequence  of  the notice  issued to

Suraz India Trust, vide our order dated 27.3.2017.  Before we venture to

do so, at the cost of repetition, we may note, that Mr. Daiya did not find

any fault, factual or otherwise, with the veracity of the narration extracted

hereinabove,  which was  recorded in  open Court,  in  the  presence  of  a

packed  Court-hall,  where  learned  counsel  were  waiting  for  the  turn,

whilst Mr. Daiya merely advanced his submissions.

19. It is also necessary to again notice (though in a different context),

that at the beginning of our consideration, Mr. Rajiv Daiya had made a

request to us, to render him assistance, by appointing an amicus curiae,

as he himself was not fully qualified to pursue the cause raised in the

main writ petition.  We have already recorded the reasons of our rejection,

of  his  request.   This  aspect,  however,  requires  an  examination  from

another point of view, because when the petitioner – Suraz India Trust

had approached this court by filing Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of 2010, this

Court had recorded the following observations in respect of   Mr.  Rajiv

Daiya himself:

“2. As Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman of the Trust appeared in person and was not able to render any assistance to the Court, thus, we

26

requested  Mr.  A.K.  Ganguli,  learned  Senior  Counsel  alongwith Mr.  Bharat  Sangal  to  assist  the  Court  as  amicus  curiae.   The petition raises large number of complicated issues.  Meanwhile, we also sought assistance of the learned Attorney General for India.”

(emphasis is ours)

We  find  no  contradiction  in  the  position  expressed  above,  and  the

inference drawn by us.   We may only state,  that  he may not  be in a

position to project complicated questions of law, but he certainly had no

difficulty in explaining and clarifying factual issues.  In this context, we

find it difficult to comprehend, why the petitioner – Suraz India Trust, had

approached  this  Court  again  and  again.   Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya  personally

represented  Suraz  India  Trust,  in  all  Court  proceedings.   He  was

individually found to be incompetent to render assistance, on complicated

legal issues.  Through the present writ petition, the Trust has prayed for a

declaration,  that  Section 3 of  the Judges (Enquiry)  Act,  1968, be held

unconstitutional, being violative of Article 124(4) of the Constitution.  In

the present writ petition it is also the prayer of the petitioner, that this

Court declare, that the provisions of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 are

violative  of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution,  and  as  such,  the  entire

enactment be set aside.  Why should a Trust be pursuing such a cause?

Even if the prayers made in the petition were to be accepted, who would

benefit threrefrom?  One would wonder, whether this petition had been

filed bona-fide?  Or, is this petition, a proxy litigation?  For the present

consideration, it is not necessary for us to go into all  these questions.

But  these  are  certainly  issues  of  concern,  specially  when,  the  same

27

petitioner has been approaching this Court again and again, always on

complicated legal issues.

20. Before venturing to arrive at an affirmative view, on the show cause

notice  issued to  the petitioner,  it  is  necessary for us to  deal  with the

submissions advanced by Mr. Daiya, on the basis of the order passed by

this Court, on 4.4.2011.  The alleged non-compliance of the above order,

constituted the thrust of his submissions.  In the above order, passed in

Writ  Petition (C)  no.  204 of  2010,  all  that  this Court  had observed in

paragraph 13 (extracted  above)  was,  that  given the  importance  of  the

issues involved, the case required to be heard by a larger Bench.  It was

also  noticed,  in  the  same  order  dated  4.4.2011,  that  on  an  earlier

occasion, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had heard the same matter.

The  order  in  question  (dated  4.4.2011)  was  passed  by  a  two-Judge

Division Bench.  The petitioner felt, for the reasons expressed above, that

the  case  needed  to  have  been  placed  before  a  Bench  of  at  least

eleven-Judges.  We find no justification in the instant inference drawn by

Mr. Daiya.  The two-Judge Division Bench, on 4.4.2011, merely required,

that the matter be heard by a larger Bench.  Again when the matter was

taken up on 9.11.2012, it was listed before a three-Judge Bench, presided

over by the Chief Justice, when the following order was passed:

“Since by the order of 4th April, 2011, this matter has been referred  to a larger Bench, let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble the  Chief justice of India, for appropriate orders.

In the meantime, notice may issue to the respondent no. 1, as  also to the learned Attorney General for India, who has already  appeared in the matter.”

28

It is not possible for us to infer from the aforesaid order, that there was

any expression of opinion by the Bench (which passed the order dated

9.11.2012),  that  the  matter  needed  to  be  placed  before  a  Bench  of

eleven-Judges  (-  or,  before  a  Bench  comprising  of  more  than  three

Judges).   In  fact,  in  our  view,  no  definitive  position  whatsoever,  was

expressed in the above order.  The only inference, that could legitimately

and logically  be  drawn from the  order  dated  9.11.2012 was,  that  the

earlier Bench by its order dated 4.4.2011 had referred the matter to a

larger Bench.  The order dated 4.4.2011 had recorded, that the matter

was previously heard by a three-Judge Bench.  The above indication in

the  order  dated  4.4.2011  would  be  irrelevant,  if  the  intent  expressed

through the order dated 4.4.2011, was to be understood in the manner

comprehended by Mr. Rajiv Daiya.  It could only have been understood to

mean,  that  the  matter  be  posted  before  a  three-Judge  Bench.

Nonetheless, the order dated 9.11.2012, required the Chief Justice to take

a conscious decision in that behalf.  And accordingly, when the matter

was  placed  before  the  Chief  Justice  for  appropriate  orders  on  the

administrative side, the then Chief  Justice posted the case for hearing

before a three-Judge Bench.  This decision of the Chief Justice was in

consonance with the order passed on 4.4.2011.  Since the order dated

4.4.2011,  was  passed  by  a  two-Judge  Bench,  when the  Chief  Justice

ordered  the  case  to  be  listed  before  a  three-Judge  Bench,  the  Chief

Justice fully complied with the order of 4.4.2011.  The assumption, that

29

the petition ought to have been listed before an eleven-Judge Bench (- or,

before a Bench comprising of more than three Judges), is a matter of the

petitioner’s imagination, and is not founded on any legal basis.   

21. When the case (Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of 2010) was heard by the

three-Judge  Bench  on  7.1.2013,  the  same  was  dismissed.   The

understanding of  the petitioner,  that the matter was wrongfully placed

before a three-Judge Bench, and thereafter, was wrongfully dismissed by

the three-Judge Bench, obviously lacks any justification (for the reasons

recorded, in the foregoing paragraphs).  We are, therefore satisfied, that

the inferences drawn by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, were the result of his lack of

maturity and understanding, of legal issues.  The observations recorded

by this Court (on an earlier occasion), that Mr. Daiya was not competent

to assist this Court on legal issues, is therefore, hereby endorsed.   

22. As recently as in January, 2017, Suraz India Trust filed the present

Writ Petition (C) no. 880 of 2016 incorporating the following prayers:

“15. MAIN PRAYER

It is,  therefore,  humbly prayed that  by an appropriate  writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) to  declare  the  provisions  of  Section  3  of  the  Judges (Enquiry)  Act,  1968  as  unconstitutional  and  void;  the same  being  inconsistent  and  in  contravention  to  the provisions of Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India;

(b) to struck down the provisions of Section 3 of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 being unconstitutional and against the basic structure of the Constitution;

(c) to declare that provisions of Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 are in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

30

(d) to pass any other as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and  proper  in  the  interest  of  justice  in  the  facts  and circumstances of the present case.”

We  are,  yet  again  constrained  to  observe,  why  should  the  Trust  be

pursuing such a cause?  We would choose to say no more.

23. After  Writ  Petition  (C)  no.  204  of  2010  was  dismissed  (-  on

7.1.2013), this Court was repeatedly approached by Suraz India Trust, to

assail  the order  dated 7.1.2013 through a  variety  of  routes,  including

contempt  petitions  (fully  detailed  above),  questioning  the  legitimacy  of

listing of the above writ petition for hearing, before a three-Judge Bench.

All  these  challenges  were  impermissible  in  law.   These  challenges

completely  lacked  jurisdiction.   The  narration  recorded  hereinabove,

leaves  no  room  for  any  doubt,  that  Suraz  India  Trust’s  actions,  in

repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, were clearly uncalled

for.  In 64 of the cases, when Suraz India Trust approached this Court, as

per the details indicated above, it did not find any success whatsoever,

and not a single direction, ever came to be issued by this Court, out of its

repeated endeavours.  No one,  who does not understand the nicety of

legal  issues,  as  has  been demonstrated  by  the  actions  of  Suraz  India

Trust,  can be  permitted  to  endlessly  waste  Court  time.   The  different

contempt  petitions  filed  by  Suraz  India  Trust,  against  a  Chief  Justice

(whilst he was still  in office),  and against the Secretary General of  the

Supreme Court,  amongst others,  were wholly groundless,  baseless and

ill-founded.

31

24. The  waste  of  judicial  time  of  this  Court,  is  a  matter  of  serious

concern.   The  course  of  action  adopted  by  the  petitioner  (despite  its

alleged, bona fide intention), was not in consonance with law.  When the

petitioner did not get the orders that it hoped for (or, felt it was entitled

to), the petitioner pointedly expressed its anger, towards all and sundry…

and even  by  name.   The  petitioner  took  its  grievance,  to  the  highest

executive functionaries in this country.  The petitioner agitated its claim,

by airing its grievances to the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of this

Court - at their private residences.  The petitioner aired its protestation,

even against the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.  These officers

were targeted because they had filed/lodged matters filed by Suraz India

Trust, for the simple reason, that they were not maintainable.  Having

considered  the  same,  we  are  satisfied,  that  the  administrative

determination by officers of the Registry of this Court, was fully justified.   

25. The posting of a matter filed by the petitioner, by the then Chief

Justice,  before  a  three-Judge  Bench,  was  also  a  matter  which  was

unnecessarily  agitated  repeatedly.   Even  by  filing  contempt  petitions

against the then Chief  Justice himself.   Filing contempt petitions,  one

after the other, on issues which lacked justification, also highlighted the

Trust’s  illegitimate  misadventures.   Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya,  appearing for  the

petitioner Trust,  is an emboldened persona.  He has expressed his ire

even against six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, including its Chief

Justice, and against three Judges of the Supreme Court, besides its Chief

32

Justice.  We are of the view, that all these actions of the petitioner, were

wholly unjustified.  Mr. Rajiv Daiya did not attempt, to even make the

slightest effort, to reason out the same, or to demonstrate the veracity of

his  actions.   Having  gone  through the  hearing,  over  a  length  of  time

expressed hereinabove, the least we can say is, that the petitioner has

been seriously remiss, in his judicial interventions.

26. Extremely important matters are taken up for consideration on a

daily basis, and they lag behind sometimes, because individuals who were

not  competent  to  assist  this  Court,  insist  without  due  cause,  to  be

granted a prolonged hearing.   Hearing is  sometimes sought (as in the

instant  case)  even  in  matters,  which  the  petitioners  themselves  are

incompetent to understand and handle.  All such misadventures have to

be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent abuse of judicial time.  Specially by

such individuals, who freely cast imaginary and scandalous accusations,

in making out their submissions.  We could have initiated sterner action

against Mr. Rajiv Daiya, for the position canvassed by him, against the

Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, as also, of this Court.   We, have

restrained ourselves from any strong handed approach, just for once.  In

future,  such  leniency  may  not  come  by.   But  this  order,  should  be

considered as a warning enough, for the future.

27. It is however not possible for us, to let off Suraz India Trust, without

any remedial consequences, for its filing of misconceived petitions.  We

therefore hereby direct, that Suraz India Trust shall  henceforth refrain

33

itself absolutely, from filing any cause in public interest, before any Court

in this country.  Similarly, Mr. Rajiv Daiya shall absolutely refrain himself

from filing any cause in public interest,  either directly or through any

other  individual,  hereinafter,  in  any  Court.   In  all  pending  matters,

whether  before this Court  or before any other High Court,  which may

have been initiated by Suraz India Trust and/or by   Mr. Rajiv Daiya, as a

cause in public interest, it shall be imperative for Suraz India Trust/Mr.

Rajiv  Daiya,  to  place the instant  judgment/order on the record of  the

case, in case the petitioner decides not to withdraw the same unilaterally.

28. For the judicial time wasted by Suraz India Trust, we consider it

just and appropriate to impose exemplary costs on it.  This is imperative,

as it would discourage, the instant nature of indiscretion, not only at the

hands  of  Suraz  India  Trust,  but  also  at  the  hands  of  other  similarly

placed individuals, who may have been emboldened, to adopt the course

treaded by Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya.   The  costs  imposed on the  petitioner  are

hereby quantified as Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only).  The

aforesaid costs shall be deposited by Suraz India Trust, with the Supreme

Court  Advocates  on  Record  Welfare  Trust,  within  three  months  from

today.  Failing deposit, the above costs shall be recoverable from Mr. Rajiv

Daiya, its Chairman, through his personal proceeds, if necessary.

29. In case the petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid cost, within the

time stipulated hereinabove, the Registry is directed to list the matter, for

recovery of cost.

34

30. The instant writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms.

………………………………. CJI. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

………………………………….. J. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

………………………………….. J. (Sanjay Kishan Kaul)

New Delhi; May 1, 2017.

35

ITEM NO.3             COURT NO.1               SECTION PIL(W)               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).880/2016 SURAZ INDIA TRUST                               Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA                                  Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for permission to appear and argue in person and office report) Date : 01/05/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Petitioner(s)    Mr.Rajiv Daiya, Petitioner-in-person     For Respondent(s)                      

Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following    O R D E R  

The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.

For the judicial time wasted by Suraz India Trust, we consider it just and appropriate to impose exemplary costs on  it.   This  is  imperative,  as  it  would  discourage,  the instant nature of indiscretion, not only at the hands of Suraz India Trust, but also at the hands of other similarly placed individuals, who may have been emboldened, to adopt the course treaded by Mr. Rajiv Daiya.  The costs imposed on the petitioner are hereby quantified as Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees twenty  five  lakhs  only).   The  aforesaid  costs  shall  be deposited  by  Suraz  India  Trust,  with  the  Supreme  Court

36

Advocates on Record Welfare Trust, within three months from today.  Failing deposit, the above costs shall be recoverable from  Mr.  Rajiv  Daiya,  its  Chairman,  through  his  personal proceeds, if necessary.

In case the petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid cost, within the time stipulated hereinabove, the Registry is directed to list the matter, for recovery of cost.

The instant writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the signed judgment.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV)                       (RENUKA SADANA)      AR-CUM-PS                           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR      (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)      

37