Page 1

REPORTABLE

               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                 CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

        WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.180 OF 2006

   TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA & ANR.  ... PETITIONER(S)

               VS.

   STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR   ... RESPONDENT(S)

      J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI.

1. The  instant  writ  petition  has  been  filed  by  two petitioners,  Transparency  International  India  and  Centre for  Media  Studies.   The  cause  for  the  petitioners,  to approach  this  Court,  seems  to  emerge  from  a  study, described  as  “India  Corruption  Study  to  improve Governance”,  conducted  by  Centre  for  Media  Study,  and published  by  Transparency  International  India.   It  was sought  to  be  repeatedly  highlighted,  that  the  above research program taken on hand by Centre for Media Studies, was  a  general  study  on  governance,  predominantly  with reference to the bureaucracy, and the functioning of the administrative machinery.  Yet it was acknowledged, that there were references to the functioning of the judiciary, as well.

1

Page 2

2. Even  though,  the  above  study  was  conducted independently,  with  reference  to  each  State,  yet  the relevant study, which has brought the petitioners of the instant writ petition to this Court, pertains to the State of  Jammu  and  Kashmir,  and  is  limited  to  the  findings recorded  therein,  with  reference  only  to  the  lower judiciary.  For the aforesaid purpose, learned counsel for the  petitioners  invited  our  attention  to  Table  No.2.1: Jammu and Kashmir-Ranking of Public Services, the extract whereof, which is relevant to the subject of the present controversy, is extracted hereunder :

“Table No.2.1: Jammu & Kashmir-Ranking of Public Services Depart- ment

Direct experience of bribing

Quality of  service is  poor

Using  influence/  middle-  men

Perception  that  depart-   ment is  corrupt

Lack of  Commit-  ment to  reduce  corruption

Percep-  tion  increased

Composite Index  Value

NEED BASED Judiciary (Lower)

96 81 09 92 88 86 87

A perusal of the table extracted above reveals, that the compilation  of  the  views  of  those  who  were  asked  (to express their views) led to the inference, that 92% of the lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, was perceived to be corrupt. 3. It is also relevant to refer to Table 2.2: (Estimated No. of Households Paid Bribes), wherein, with reference to the lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the study incorporated, the following data/information :

2

Page 3

  “Table No.2.2 : Estimated No. of Households Paid Bribes Department No. of Households Paid Bribes

Judiciary (Lower) 223267

A  perusal  of  the  table  extracted  above  reveals,  that 2,23,267 cases of actual bribe giving were disclosed, with reference to the lower judiciary, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

4. Based on the findings recorded, with reference to the lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, Jammu & Kashmir,  on  4.5.2006  initiated  action  against  five individuals/parties,  details  whereof  are  extracted hereunder :

“1. P.N. Razdan, author of Op.Ed. Page – Corruption in J&K – here, there and Everywhere – I & II, C/o Greater Kashmir  

2. Fayaz Ahmed Kaloo, editor Printer & Publisher, GK 14/B Sanat Nagar, Srinagar/6 Pratap Park,

    Residency Road 3. Zahir-ud-In – Executive Editor

Greater Kashmir 4. Centre for Media Studies

New Delhi through its Director/Secretary  C/o GK

5. Transparency International through Chief Executive Officer C/o GK (non-applicant/respondents)”

It is therefore apparent, that the Centre for Media Studies (Petitioner No.2, before this Court), was issued notice at

3

Page 4

serial  No.4,  and  Transparency  International  (Petitioner No.1, herein) was issued notice at serial No.5.

5. The text of the order dated 4th May, 2006, is also reproduced hereinbelow :

“Order 4th May 06     Whereas Greater Kashmir, Newspapers daily, printed and published by non-applicant No.2 as edited by non-applicant No.3 has published an article in Op.-Ed at page 7 filled 'Corruption in J&K - here, there and everywhere – I & II authorized  by  non-applicant  No.1,  based  on certain references to non-applicants 4 & 5 in the paper dated 3  rd   and 4  th   May, 2006.

Whereas  the  subtitle  of  the  article  in bold  front  depicts,  'Lower  Judiciary'  and further in Column 2, line 45 and col.3 line 8 – wherein the author refers, “Kashmir viewed as the  most  corrupt,  Lower  Judiciary  (86%) and referred  to  as  'govt.  -  sucking'  –  Also  in article Part II – published on 4th May 06 col.1 and 2 last line (Col.1) and first seven lines in col.2 which are reproduced herein below.  “A strong  and  honest  head  of  the  unit  or department,  who  is  easily  amenable  to  the public,  has  powers  to  take  drastic  action against  the  delinquent  officials,  and  has  a political  interference,  is  sure  to  deliver results”.

Whereas  such  publication  is  libelous  in nature, where such sweeping reference towards the  judiciary  is  general  and  subordinate judiciary (lower) as mentioned in the article in  particular,  thereby  not  only  scandalizing the whole system of administration of justice, but also defaming the public servants (member of  subordinate  judicial  services)  who  are employed in connection with administration of justice and thereby lowering down the image of judiciary as a whole and tends to scandalize and  lower  down  the  image  of  judiciary  as  a whole undermining the authority of courts (esp. lower  courts)  and  shaking  the  confidence  of general public and prejudicing the due course of justice.

4

Page 5

Whereas  such  generic  remarks  cast reflections on the very conduct of subordinate judiciary  and  even  sight  upto  their administrative  heads  as  given  in  part  II, creating  doubts  about  the  integrity  of functioning of the Department as a whole.

Whereas in the opinion of this court, this flagrant statement has not only lowered down the  image  of  judiciary  and  is  direct interference into the administration of justice and callous and irresponsible behaviour on the part of respondents.

Therefore  by  virtue  of  this  show  cause notice you are hereby called upon to explain your position, within a period of 15 days from the issuance of this notice as to why action as warranted under law be not initiated against you.

Issued  under  my  hand  and  seal  of  this court, today this 4th May, 06.”  

(emphasis is ours)  6. A perusal of the order dated 4.5.2006, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, makes it abundantly clear, that the same is in the nature of a 'show cause notice', calling for the explanation of the noticees.  This position,  in  our  view,  merits  acceptance.  It  is  also relevant to mention, that the order dated 4.5.2006 also brought  out,  that  the  same  was  being  passed  under  the provisions  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1997,  and/or Section 2/6 read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir Penal Code.  It is in the above perspective, that we will examine  the  submissions  of  the  rival  counsel,  while adjudicating upon the controversy in hand.   

7.  Thereafter  (after  the  issuance  of  the  notice extracted above, dated 4th May, 2006), it was pointed out on

5

Page 6

behalf  of  the  petitioners,  that  further  notices  dated 16.2.2006  and  1.7.2006,  were  also  issued,  for  the  same purpose.   The  notice  dated  1.07.06,  categorically expressed, “...Now again you are being issued notice to cause  your  appearance  or  through  your  authorized representative to answer all material questions as to why cognizance as taken above be not proceeded against you on or  before  next  date  of  hearing  ...”   It  is  therefore apparent, that the personal presence of the petitioners (or others, to whom the above notices were issued) was not sought.

8. The  pleadings  in  the  instant  writ  petition,  more particularly  paragraph  6  thereof,  acknowledge  that, Transparency International India (-Petitioner No.1 herein), received the show cause notice on 7.7.2006, and Centre for Media Studies (-Petitioner No.2 herein), received the same on 16.6.2006.  Having received the aforesaid notices, the following response was addressed by the Centre for Media Studies  (-Petitioner  No.2),  to  the  Judicial  Magistrate, Class-I, Kangan, Jammu & Kashmir, on 23.6.2006.   The same is extracted below :

“RESEARCH HOUSE Saket Community Centre

New Delhi-110017 23 June 2006 To Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Kangan, J&K

6

Page 7

Ref: You notice of 16/06/2006, No.101/MK    Contempt of Courts Act – 1997, Sec.216 read    with Section 499, 500/501 RPC. Sir,    Although  the  Order  dated  16  June  2006 mentioned  that  “a  copy  of  the  complaint  it enclosed”, a copy of the complaint has not been enclosed.  Instead, a copy of the Order dated 4th May, 2006 directing show cause notice to be issued and posting the case to 19 May 2006 was enclosed.  The Order dated 4th May 2006 was not served on us till today.  A copy of the letter is  received  along  with  Order  dated  16  June 2006.   Therefore,  we  had  no  opportunity  to respond to the notice dated 4 May 2006.  This letter may be treated as response to the show cause notice directed to be issued on 4th May, 2006.

Without a copy of the complaint and a copy of the article entitled Corruption in Jammu & Kashmir here, there and everywhere – I & II by Mr. F.N. Razdan as published in Greater Kashmir being made available to us, it is not possible for us to reply to the show cause notice or to assist the Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate Class-1st, Kangan in this case.  We, therefore request that these crucial documents which are absolutely  essential  to  be  supplied  to  us. Only after seeing the said article which is the basis  of  the  complaint  we  will  be  able  to explain the reference allegedly made there in to the Centre for Media Studies.

At this point of time we can only say that we are not a party to the said article and we have no role in the writing or publication of the said article.  We have no connection either with  the  author  of  the  article  or  the publication of the said article.  We have no connection  either  with  the  author  of  the article or the publisher or the editor of the newspaper concerned.

Nevertheless, we would like to state that CMS has been undertaking for more than a couple of  years  national  surveys  on  corruption involving  ordinary  citizen  in  various  public services/utilities.  In this exercise eminent experts on the subjects covered in the study are being consulted.  More specifically, Chief

7

Page 8

Central  Vigilance  Commissioner,  Vigilance Commissioners, Justice Rajinder Sachhar (former Chief  Justice  of  Delhi  High  Court),  Shri Prashant Bhushan, for example, and such other outstanding  national  personalities  have  been consulted at one point or other in the process of designing and conducting these surveys on corruption and common citizen.  They are all familiar  with  the  survey  findings  and  the reports published by Transparency International India some months ago.  J & K was included in the India Corruption Survey of 2005 conducted by  CMS  in  collaboration  with  Transparency International India and its President Admiral R.H. Tahiliani. The then Vigilance Commissioner of J & K (Shri Radhavinod Raju, IPS) visited CMS in New Delhi for discussions and was aware of the survey both before conducting, during the time of the survey in J & K, and after the publication of the report in this context.

The said study covers 19 other States of India.  CMS  has  been  appreciated  for  its pioneering  work  in  this  regard  and  many, including senior officials of the States, have thanked us for the study.  The study findings were  published  by  internationally  reputed Transparency  International  India  and  its Chairman Admiral R.H. Tahiliani took personal interest  with  a  hope  that  seriousness  is imparted into public debate on critical issues before  the  Nation  with  more  reliable  field data.  Further as concerned citizens to India, we  are  as  much  sincerely  concerned  and interested in upholding the status and role of Judiciary  in  the  country.   In  fact,  the Chairman of CMS had closely worked in the last decade with two former Chief Justices of India –  Justice  P.N.  Bhagawati  and  Justice  R.S. Pathak.  Our Chairman was the national Convener while  they  were  the  Chairpersons  of  Social Audit  Panels  constituted  by  Ministry  of Communication and Ministry of Environment and Forests, respectively.

There was never any intention at all on our part to scandalize or lower the authority of the judiciary much less interface with the due  course  of  justice  or  obstruct  the administration of justice in any manner.

We pray that in view of the facts stated above, the Order directing appearance on July 1st, 2016 may be recalled and the case closed as against us.

8

Page 9

Thanking you, Sincerely

For Centre for Media Studies”     (emphasis is ours)

 9. A  separate  response  dated  7.7.2016,  was  also addressed  on  behalf  of  Transparency  International  India (-Petitioner No.1, herein) to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Kangan.  Since the response runs into several pages, for reasons of brevity, we shall extract hereunder, only a relevant portion thereof :

“However, without any prejudice, we would like to make the following submissions : 1. We are aware that subordinate courts do not

have  the  power  of  contempt  under  the Contempt of Courts Act.  They can at most make a reference to the High Court and the High Court can then, take a decision on the matter.

2. We  presume  that  your  notice  is  only  to enable  you  to  decide  whether  to  make  a reference  to  the  High  Court  to  commence contempt proceedings.

3. We presume that our response is to enable the  above  and  not  to  directly  commence contempt proceedings at this stage.

4. We now enclose a reply to this notice as to why action may not be initiated against us on  the  charges  of  contempt,  libel  and defamation.”

                           (emphasis is ours)

10. A  perusal  of  the  extracts  from  the  responses, reproduced above, would reveal, that the petitioners did not object to the initiation of the show cause proceedings. It is necessary to notice, that the petitioners informed

9

Page 10

the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, that while it was open to the Magistrate to make a reference to the High Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Magistrate had no  right  to  suo  moto  initiate  proceedings,  under  the Contempt  of  Courts  Act.  Besides  recording  the  above submissions in its reply,  Transparency International India also  highlighted  the  fact,  that  it  had  not  seen  the newspaper  article,  which  constituted  the  basis,  for  the show cause.  It also expressly asserted, that Petitioner No.1 had no connection with the author/publisher/editor of the newspaper-Greater Kashmir.  The reply, also gave out, the  functions/activities  and  the  credentials  of  the Transparency International India.  Be that as it may, it needs  to  be  noticed,  that  in  its  response  Transparency International India, in the reference to the said letter, as also, in the contents thereof acknowledged, that the proceedings had been initiated under the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 and/or Section 2(d) read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

11. It  seems,  that  having  responded  to  the  notices received from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan (through their communications, referred to above), the petitioners felt satisfied, that no further response was called for on their behalf.  And therefore, despite having  been  required  to  enter  appearance  before  the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, vide orders dated

10

Page 11

16.6.2006 and 1.7.2006, the petitioners chose not to appear before  the  concerned  Court.   Consequent  upon  the  non- appearance  of  the  petitioners  before  the  Judicial Magistrate, the impugned order dated 24.8.2006 came to be passed.  The text of the above order is reproduced below :

“Whereas a Robkar titled above is pending before  this  Court  and  the  attendance  of  the said non-applicant is required.

As such you are asked to arrest the said person  and  produce  him  before  this  court  on 27.9.06.  In case the said person furnish the bail bond of Rs.15,000/- and the surety of like amount, he shall be released.”   

                                 (emphasis is ours)

A perusal of the above order reveals, that even though the respondents had been summoned to the Court, they had not entered  appearance,  and  therefore,  their  attendance  was being procured through bailable warrants.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in his effort to assail  the  above  order  dated  24.8.2006,  vehemently contended, that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, seems to have taken upon himself, the jurisdiction vested in a High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.  It was submitted, that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, had no authority to direct the attendance or the presence of the petitioners, under contempt proceedings.  It was submitted,  that  the  impugned  order  extracted  above,  was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate. It was pointed out, that when the matter was listed before

11

Page 12

this Court for hearing, on the first occasion itself, on 20.9.2006, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 24.8.2006, till further orders.  It was pointedly asserted, that this Court must have been clearly conscious, of the abuse of jurisdiction of contempt proceedings, at the hands of the Judicial Magistrate, and accordingly, in its motion Bench order dated 20.9.2006, this Court, not only stayed the execution of the warrants of arrest (issued against the Chairman, Transparency International India, and the Director, Centre for Media Studies), but also stayed further  proceedings  in  the  matter  (pending,  before  the concerned Magistrate).

13. In continuation of the position expressed above, it was  the  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioners, that under the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of Courts  Act,  1997,  the  jurisdiction  to  initiate  contempt proceedings is only vested with the High Court.  For this, reference has been made to Section 10 thereof, which is reproduced below :

“10.  Power  of  the  High  Court  to  punish contempts  of  subordinate  courts:-  The  High Court  shall  have  and  exercise  the  same jurisdiction,  powers  and  authority  in accordance  with  the  same  procedure  and practice,  in  respect  of  contempts  of  courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts itself :

Provided  that  the  High  Court  shall  not take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been  committed  in  respect  of  a  court

12

Page 13

subordinate  to  it  where  such  contempt  is  an offence punishable under the Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989.”

     (emphasis is ours)

Based on the mandate of Section 10 extracted above, it was submitted, that even when contempt was alleged to have been committed  against  a  subordinate  court,  only  the jurisdictional  High  Court  and  not  the  subordinate  court (against  which  the  contempt  is  alleged  to  have  been committed)  had  jurisdiction  to  initiate  contempt proceedings.

14. Furthermore, even though it was acknowledged, that cognizance of criminal contempt could have been taken, at the instance of a subordinate court, it was submitted, that only the High Court had the authority to initiate action in the matter.  For this, reference was made to Section 15 of the 1997 Act, which is reproduced below:

“15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases :- (1) In the case of criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred in section 14, the  High  Court  may  take  action  on  its  own motion or of a motion made by - (a) the Advocate General; or (b)  any  other  person,  with  the  consent  in writing of the Advocate General. (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate  court,  the  High  Court  may  take action  on  a  reference  made  to  it  by  the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate General. (3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the

13

Page 14

person charged is allegedly to be guilty. Explanation.- In this section, the expression “Advocate General” means the Advocate General of the State.”                              (emphasis is ours)

Based on Section 15 extracted above, it was submitted, that only  that  subordinate  court,  against  which  criminal contempt is alleged to have been committed, can make a reference, about the same to the jurisdictional High Court. Relying on sub-section (2) of Section 15, it was sought to be explained, that it was only the court, of which contempt has  been  committed,  and  which  was  having  intrinsic knowledge thereof, was authorized to make such reference, and not just any court.

15. It was submitted, that the extract from the report of the  Centre  for  Media  Studies,  which  was  sought  to  be published  by  Transparency  International  India,  was  a general report, based on a study.  And that, the report was not aimed at a particular court, and as such, it was not open to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan, in any case, even to make such a reference to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 15 of the 1997 Act.  

16. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in the absence of the petitioners, the Judicial Magistrate, Kangan, ought to have proceeded in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the

14

Page 15

response submitted by the petitioners.  In this behalf it was asserted, that the response of the petitioners, to the notice issued to them, ought to have been considered, and further  proceedings  ought  to  have  been  dropped,  as  the petitioners could not be held to be blameworthy, of the newspaper reporting.

17. We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the submissions advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the petitioners.  We have also heard learned counsel for the State of Jammu & Kashmir, who has generally supported the cause, and the different orders, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan.

18. We  would  first  like  to  deal  with  one  of  the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, based on Section 15 of the 1997 Act.  It was contended, that a reference could be made only by the particular court, of which contempt was allegedly committed, and not by just any court.  And that, only the said particular court, could make a reference to the High Court, to initiate contempt proceedings.   It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  accept  the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, at least, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In  our  considered  view,  in  the  sense  that  the  above contention has been advanced, it would not be open to any Member of the lower judiciary, to make a reference to a

15

Page 16

High Court, wherein general allegations have been levelled. The publication of the article in the newspaper – Greater Kashmir,  wherein,  only  general  allegations  have  been levelled, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be the basis of any action.  It was highlighted, on the basis of the compilation of Centre for Media Studies (Petitioner  No.2),  and  publication  of  the  compilation effectuated by Transparency International India (Petitioner No.1),  that 92% of the lower judiciary in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, was perceived to be corrupt, and there were  actual  figures  of  2,23,267  cases,  where  bribe  was actually given.  But there were no allegations aimed at any individual  Judge  or  Court.  Only  because  the  above allegations were not aimed at any particular Court, the provisions of the 1997 Act could not be invoked.  It is not possible for us to accept the above contention.  We may clarify, that the term “of a subordinate court”, used in Section 15(2) of the 1997 Act – could well contemplate a situation, where the alleged contemptuous action is aimed at more than one court, or a large number of  courts, all at once.  In that eventuality, in our considered view, any one of such courts, can make a reference to the High Court, under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997.  In view of the above, we may be deemed to have concluded, that where the contemptuous action is of a general nature, and is not aimed at specific Judges or Courts, any one of such Judges or Courts, which perceives

16

Page 17

that the same is aimed at him (or it), would be well within its  right,  to  make  a  reference  of  the  same  to  the jurisdictional  High  court.  And  thereupon,  whether cognizance and initiation of contempt proceedings need to be taken, would fall within the realm of the High Court itself.   

19. We  are,  however,  satisfied  in  accepting,  that  the Judicial Magistrate, Kangan, had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned order dated 24.8.2006, whereby, it contemplated to enforce the attendance of the petitioners (amongst others), by way of arrest.   We are also of the view, that in a case as the one in hand, the petitioners had perceived, that the proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate on 4.5.2006, were misconceived. And  accordingly,  in  their  written  submissions,  it  was acknowledged “...We presume that your notice is only to enable you to decide whether to make a reference to the High Court to commence contempt proceedings... We presume that  our  response  is  to  enable  the  above  and  not  to directly commence contempt proceedings at this stage...” Having  received  the  aforesaid  response  from  the petitioners,  and  the  petitioners  having  not  entered appearance  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  the  Judicial Magistrate ought to have proceeded further with the matter, in  consonance  with  law.   And  if  it  was  the  Court's understanding, that the matter needed to be taken further,

17

Page 18

either under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 and/or under Section 2/6 read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir Penal Code, the Court ought to have done so. 20. In view of the above, while disposing of the instant petition,  we  direct  the  present  Judicial  Magistrate,  1st

Class, Kangan (the judicial officer holding the charge of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kangan) to proceed with the matter in furtherance of the original show cause  notice  dated  4.5.2006.   It  shall  be  open  to  the petitioners to enter their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (either in person or through their counsel).  In case the petitioners do not enter appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, he may pass such an order, as  he  considers  appropriate,  in  consonance  with  law. Needless  to  mention,  that  it  would  be  open  to  the petitioners to assail the same, in case they are aggrieved thereof.  The order dated 24.8.2006 is quashed and set aside.

21. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on Section 199-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, as is applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, to contend that, it would not be open to the Magistrate concerned to initiate proceedings under Section 2/6 read with Sections 499, 500/501 of the Ranbir Penal Code.  We record the contention of the learned counsel  for  the  petitioners,  and  in  case  the  concerned

18

Page 19

Judicial Magistrate desires to proceed under the aforesaid provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, the Court shall take due notice of the submissions advanced by the petitioners under  Section  199-B  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973.

22. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners informed us, that Admiral R.H. Tahiliani, to whom the notices dated 16.6.2006 and 1.7.2006 were issued, has since passed away, and as such, proceedings initiated against him, would stand abated.  We find force in the contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the petitioners.   The  proceedings  initiated  against  Admiral R.H. Tahiliani, shall be deemed to have abated.

23. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequent upon the disposal of the main petition, all the pending applications, shall also stand disposed of.     

      ......................CJI. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

........................J. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD]

........................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

New Delhi; 21st February, 2017.

19