Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.224 OF 2011

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10660 OF 2010

Rajeshwar Singh …Petitioner

Versus

Subrata Roy Sahara & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We may, at the outset, point out that, at this stage, we are

only examining the maintainability of this contempt petition, on

which arguments have been advanced by the learned senior

counsels on either side. This contempt petition has been

Page 2 2

preferred under Article 129, 142 of the Constitution of India, read

with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short

‘the Act’) and Rule 12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for

Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

2.Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for

the first respondent, submitted that this contempt petition is not

maintainable since it has been filed without the consent of the

Attorney General of India or other officer mentioned in Section 15

of the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that neither the

order of this Court dated 06.05.2011 nor the notice dated

23.05.2011 gives any indication of the nature of the criminal

contempt to be defended by the respondent. Learned senior

counsel further submitted that even the notice dated 23.05.2011

does not comply with Rule 6 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings

for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Learned senior

counsel also submitted that it does not mention whether it is a

civil contempt or a criminal contempt. Learned senior counsel

also submitted that there is nothing to show that the first

respondent had any knowledge of this Court’s order dated

Page 3 3

16.03.2011. Consequently, it cannot be said that there was any

willful disobedience of that order. Further, such an allegation is

not even raised in the notice. Reliance was placed on the

Judgment of this Court in Aligarh Municipal Board and others

v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others (1970) 3 SCC 98.

Learned senior counsel submitted that the order, on which

disobedience is alleged to have been committed, is not within the

knowledge of the respondent and he is not expected or bound to

know the same from the media or newspapers. Learned senior

counsel also pointed out that the burden to prove the knowledge

is not on the alleged contemnors, as held by this Court in Bharat

Steel Tubes Limited v. IFCI Limited (2010) 14 SCC 77.

3.Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the

second respondent, submitted that consent of the Attorney

General is a pre-requisite to initiate contempt of court

proceedings, which is not an empty formality. Learned senior

counsel submitted that second respondent is not a party to any of

the orders passed by this Court and he has not violated any order

passed by this court. Further, it was also pointed out that even

Page 4 4

the notice is silent in what manner the second respondent has

violated the order passed by this Court. Learned senior counsel

submitted that even the powers conferred on this Court to issue

suo motu notice is also limited and could be exercised only in

exceptional circumstances. Learned senior counsel placed

reliance on the Judgments of this Court in J.R. Parashar,

Advocate and others v. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate and

others (2001) 6 SCC 735 and Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 3 SCC 705.

4.Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the

third respondent, also refuted all the allegations raised against

the third respondent and submitted that he has nothing to do with

the service tenure in the Enforcement Directorate or the cases

relating to 2G Scam. Learned senior counsel also submitted that

the contempt petition itself is not maintainable.

5.Shir K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for

the C.B.I., submitted that the contempt alleged is not merely a

criminal contempt but also a civil contempt. Learned senior

counsel referred to Section 2(b) of the Act and submitted that

Page 5 5

there has been willful disobedience of the directions of this Court

by the respondents jointly and severally. Learned senior counsel

also referred to Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act and submitted that the

attempt of the respondents is to interfere and obstruct the

investigation conducted by the petitioner, which is being

supervised and monitored by this Court. Learned senior counsel

further submitted that this Court under Article 129 read with

Article 142 of the Constitution has the power to see that the

investigation which is being supervised/monitored by this Court is

not interfered with by any person or from any quarters. Learned

senior counsel also submitted that no sanction from the Attorney

General is necessary when this Court suo motu initiates the

contempt proceedings in exercise of the powers conferred under

Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, irrespective

of the provisions of the Act and the Rules to Regulate proceedings

for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Learned senior

counsel placed considerable reliance on the Judgment of this

Court in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan and another

(2010) 7 SCC 592.

Page 6 6

6.We are, in this case, concerned with the question as to

whether there has been any attempt on the part of the

respondents to interfere with an investigation which is being

monitored by this Court. When a court monitors a criminal

investigation it is the responsibility and duty of the court to see

that the investigation is being carried out in the right direction

and the Officers, who are entrusted with the task be not

intimidated or pressured by any person, however high he may be.

Considerable responsibility and duty is cast on the court when it

monitors a criminal investigation. People have trust and

confidence when court monitors a criminal investigation and the

court has to live up to that trust and confidence and any

interference from any quarters to scuttle that investigation, has to

be sternly dealt with.

7.Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010, in which the present

contempt petition has been preferred, was filed under Article 136

of the Constitution of India praying for a court monitored

investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), what

was described as 2G Spectrum Scam and also for a direction to

Page 7 7

investigate the role played by A. Raja, the then Union Minister for

DoT, senior officers of DoT, middlemen, businessmen and others.

Before this Court, it was pointed out that the CBI had lodged a

first information report on 21.10.2009 alleging that during the

years 2000-2008 certain officials of the DoT entered into a

criminal conspiracy with certain private companies and misused

their official position in the grant of Unified Access Licenses

causing wrongful loss to the nation, which was estimated to be

more than Rs.22,000 crores. CBI, following that, registered a case

No.RC-DAI-2009-A-0045(2G Spectrum Case) on 21.10.2009 under

Section 120B IPC, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 against a former Cabinet Minister and others.

8.The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) also conducted an

inquiry under Section 8(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission

Act, 2003 and noticed grave irregularities in the grant of licences.

The CVC on 12.10.2009 had forwarded the inquiry report to the

Director, CBI to investigate into the matter to establish the

criminal conspiracy in the allocation of 2G Spectrum under UASL

policy of DoT and to bring to book all wrongdoers. This Court

Page 8 8

after taking into consideration of the report of the CVC as well as

the findings recorded by the CAG agreed for a court monitored

investigation and passed the following order:

“We are, prima facie, satisfied that the allegations

contained in the writ petition and the affidavits filed

before this Court, which are supported not only by the

documents produced by them, but also the report of the

Central Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to

the Director, CBI on 12.10.2009 and the findings

recorded by the CAG in the Performance Audit Report,

need a thorough and impartial investigation. However,

at this stage, we do not consider it necessary to appoint

a Special Team to investigate what the appellants have

described as 2G Spectrum Scam because the

Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid

down in Vineet Narain’s case, agreed for a Court

monitored investigation.”

9.This Court, with a view to ensure a comprehensive and co-

ordinated investigation by the CBI and the Enforcement

Directorate, vide its order dated 16.12.2010 gave the following

directions:

(i) The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation

into various issues high-lighted in the report of

the Central Vigilance Commission, which was

forwarded to the director, CBI vide letter dated

12.10.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have

prima facie found serious irregularities in the

grant of licences to 122 applicants, majority of

whom are said to be ineligible, the blatant

violation of the terms and conditions of licences

Page 9 9

and huge loss to the public exchequer running

into several thousand crores. The CBI should

also probe how licences were granted to large

number of ineligible applicants and who was

responsible for the same and why the TRAI and

the DoT did not take action against those

licensees who sold their stake/equities for many

thousand crores and also against those who

failed to fulfill rollout obligations and comply

with other conditions of licence.

(ii) The CBI shall conduct the investigation

without being influenced by any functionary,

agency or instrumentality of the State and

irrespective of the position, rank or status of the

person to be investigated/probed.

(iii) The CBI shall, if it has already not registered

first information report in the context of the

alleged irregularities committed in the grant of

licences from 2001 to 2006-2007, now register a

case and conduct thorough investigation with

particular emphasis on the loss caused to the

public exchequer and corresponding gain to the

licensees/service providers and also on the issue

of allowing use of dual/alternate technology by

some service providers even before the decision

was made public vide press release dated

19.10.2007.

(iv) The CBI shall also make investigation into the

allegation of grant of huge loans by the public

sector and other banks to some of the

companies which have succeeded in obtaining

licences in 2008 and find out whether the

officers of the DoT were signatories to the loan

agreement executed by the private companies

and if so, why and with whose permission they

did so.

Page 10 10

(v) The Directorate of Enforcement/ concerned

agencies of the Income Tax Department shall

continue their investigation without any

hindrance or interference by any one.

(vi) Both the agencies, i.e. the CBI and the

Directorate of Enforcement shall share

information with each other and ensure that the

investigation is not hampered in any manner

whatsoever.

(vii) The Director General, Income Tax

(Investigation) shall, after completion of analysis

of the transcripts of the recording made

pursuant to the approval accorded by the Home

Secretary, Government of India, hand over the

same to CBI to facilitate further investigation

into the FIR already registered or which may be

registered hereinafter.”

10.CBI and the Enforcement Directorate then used to apprise

this Court of the various stages of the investigation and seek

directions and this Court, on 10.02.2011, passed an order stating

that since this Court is monitoring the investigation of 2G

Spectrum Scam no court shall pass any order which may, in any

manner, impede the investigation being carried out by the CBI

and the Directorate of Enforcement. Learned Attorney General

also informed this Court that he had received a communication on

Page 11 11

16.03.2011 from the Delhi High Court of nominating Shri O.P.

Saini, an officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, as the Special

Judge to take up the trial of cases relating to what has been

described as 2G Scam. The Court was also informed that two

separate notifications would be issued by the Central Government

in terms of Section 3(1) the PC Act, 1988 and Section 43(1) of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for establishment of

the Special Court to exclusively try the offences relating to 2G

Scam and other related offences. Following that, two notifications

were published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary, on the 28

th

March, 2011.

11.Noticing the above submissions a detailed order was passed

by this Court on 16.03.2011, which inter alia reads as follows:

“While adjourning the case, we make it clear that no

one including the newspapers shall interfere with the

functioning of the C.B.I. team and the officers of the

Enforcement Directorate who are investigating what

has been described as 2G Scam and the Court will take

serious cognizance of any endeavour made by any

person or group of persons in this regard.”

12.Petitioner - the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate

who is invested with the responsibility and duty of investigating

Page 12 12

the 2G Spectrum case, submits that, during the course of

investigation, he could come across various materials, having

considerable bearing on the investigation relating to 2G Scam.

The petitioner, in this contempt petition, has stated as follows:

“Facts came to the notice of the Directorate of

Enforcement that one M/s Sahara India Investment

Corporation, a Sahara group company, now known as

M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd., during the course of

investigation it is revealed that the said company had

invested Rs.14.00 Crores on 28.09.2007 on which date

M/s S-Tel Ltd., had applied for 16 more licences. This

investment has been purportedly made for purchase of

shares of M/s S-Tel. Surprisingly, this investment has

been sold back on 15.01.2009 for an amount of

Rs.16.80 Crores. In view of these financial details being

revealed during the course of investigation and

considering the fact that this entire 2G Spectrum case,

there has been several ways of transactions, which was

deemed appropriate to investigate this aspect of the

matter also and accordingly on 02.02.2011, a summon

had been issued to the Managing Director of the said

Company requiring his personal appearance on

17.02.2011. The Managing Director is Mr. Subrata Roy

Sahara, who chose not to appear, but, to apply for an

adjournment for four weeks. Taking into consideration

said request a fresh summon was issued on 30.03.2011

requiring his appearance on 08.04.2011. He is

respondent No.1, above named, and he chose not to

appear even on 08.04.2011 and has, thus, shown non

cooperative attitude.”

13.The petitioner, with reference to Sahara India Commercial

Corporation Limited, has stated as follows:

Page 13 13

“That there is yet another Sahara Group company by

the name Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited

based in Mumbai, which has purportedly paid Rs.9.50

Crores on 06.07.2007 to one M/s Sky City Foundation

Pvt. Ltd., as an advance. This Sky City Foundation has

in turn invested the very same money with M/s S-Tel,

just before the date of application of M/s S-Tel made to

the DoT for issuance of Universal Access Service (UAS)

Licence on 09.07.2007.

That in view of the said fact, it was deemed

appropriate to summon the concerned officials of the

said Co. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation

Limited on 07.04.2011 and for the purpose the summon

was issued on 30.03.2011.”

14.The petitioner, referring to the second Status Report

covering the period from 27.11.2010 to 08.02.2011, has referred

to the involvement of M/s Sahara India Investment Ltd., now

known as M/s Sahara Prime City Ltd. and stated as follows:

“The said status report also mentions other details

about the acquisition of other two companies by a

group in March, April, 2009 in respect of which letters

for inquiry have been sent to Mauritius. It is deemed

expedient not to disclose further details in this

application on account of the fact that the Directorate

of Enforcement is investigating into the money trail and

if further details are disclosed in the application the

same is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of

investigation. However, the applicant undertakes to

disclose such other facts including the status report in a

sealed cover to this Hon’ble Court, if so directed.

Page 14 14

It is further respectfully submitted that in the third

Status Report, covering the period from 09.02.2011 to

17.03.2011 also mentions about a person being issued

summon. The said fact is mentioned on page 20 in

paragraph 20-D. Details therein clearly show that M/s

S-Tel Pvt. Ltd. had arranged for certain funds from

various groups to pay licence fee. On Page 21 of the

said Status Report, it is mentioned that further

investigation in respect of the companies named

therein just above paragraph 20-E is in progress.

Similarly in the fifth Status Report, filed on 26.04.2011,

there is a mention in paragraph 6-B regarding sale of

holding of a company and funding of M/s S-Tel by two

groups mentioned therein. The fact of Sahara India

Commercial Corporation having sought adjournment is

also mentioned in the said Status Report.”

15.The petitioner, referring to the Sahara Group of Companies,

stated as under:

“It is further submitted that yet another reference

dated 11.06.2010 as forwarded by the Head Quarter of

the Office of the Directorate of Enforcement has been

received from an Intelligence Unit of India, which

interalia alleges that Sh. Subrata Roy, respondent No. 1

of M/S. Sahara Group of Companies alongwith others

have deposited an amount of Rs.150 Crores which has

been rotated through a maze of financial transactions

between accounts of M/S. Sahara Corporation and M/S.

Sahara India within the same branch/bank. On basis of

said input, the Directorate of Enforcement had initiated

discreet enquiries against M/s. Sahara Corporation and

M/s. Sahara India for alleged violation of Foreign

Exchange Management Act, 1999. This investigation is

handled by the present applicant, who made several

enquiries with number of banks by issuing directives on

23.07.2010 and 28.07.2010. This investigation involves

over 100 banks and accounts and large financial

Page 15 15

transactions are being investigated. The modus

operandi that was adopted is resorting to cash deposits

of huge amounts on different dates in different

accounts and at remote far off places of the country

and withdrawal immediately by cheques which would

show that there is a clear attempt prima facie to

legitimize the amounts. Details from four banks have

been received which show cash deposits of more than

Rs.24 Crores, so far.

That further investigation have revealed that M/s.

Sahara India is operating more than 334 bank accounts

and details thereof has been sought from all those

banks which are yet to be scrutinized. This matter is

also referred to the Income Tax Department on

29.09.2010 for further necessary action at their end.

That during the course of enquiries a further

information is received from a reliable sources that a

company having registered office opposite Domestic

Airport in Mumbai, which is a group company of Sahara

Group, has given a loan a huge amounts in pounds to a

company in Mauritius, which is purported to be a short

term loan and investment in hospitality sector. This

amount was transferred under an automatic route

through a bank in Mumbai and this amount is

transferred to a foreign country for acquisition of a

property of a hotel company whose shares were

pledged with the Bank and which money has been

utilized to repay the outstanding of the bank.

Summons are issued to the concerned bankers of the

said companies for 09.05.2011 for appearance of these

bankers for recording of their statements. This entire

matter is also referred to by the applicant to the

Reserve Bank of India on 22.03.2011 and 11.04.2011

and response to some queries are yet to be received

and the investigation in the said matter is under

progress.

Page 16 16

That there is yet another investigation which is

popularly referred is as Madhu Koda Scam case in

respect of which the Division Bench of High Court of

Jharkhand has issued directions, directing the Central

Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation as

regards the predicate offence and directed the

Directorate of Enforcement to investigate offence under

Foreign Exchange Management Act and Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002. These investigations are

also under progress and are conducted by the applicant

as an Investigating Officer. In this investigation

properties worth Rs.125 Crores have already been

attached in exercise of powers under Prevention of

Money Laundering Act and during the course of

investigation it is suspected that large amount of funds

which are tainted money which are proceeds of crime

have been invested in Sahara Group companies by

those accused persons with a view to project them as

untainted money. The investigation of this is also being

carried.

It is submitted that all these investigations

undertaken by the petitioner applicant, before your

lordship, has irked the Sahara Group and more

particularly the respondents.”

16.Petitioner submits that he is being personally attacked by

the respondents through various means so that he will not make

further headway in the investigation. The petitioner has

explained in Paras 5 to 12 of the petition, the manner in which he

is being intimidated, which read as follows:

“5.That when investigations have been initiated in

the 2G Spectrum case against them, the respondents

have conspired to interfere with the original 2G

Page 17 17

Spectrum case investigations so as to derail the same,

the details whereof are stated hereinafter.

It may not be out of place to mention that M/s.

Sahara Airlines, which is now taken over by Jet Airways

and operated under the banner of Jetlite are also facing

investigations for violation under FERA, 1973 and an

opportunity show cause notice was issued prior to

launching prosecution which has been made subject

matter of a challenge before the High Court at

Lucknow.

That by an interim order dated 21.05.2002,

further proceedings have been stayed and on the said

fact having come to my notice while I was Assistant

Director Incharge of Lucknow Zone, I had filed

application to get the interim order vacated.

6.It is submitted that on 02.05.2011 having come to

know from reliable sources that some business house /

liaison persons together with disgruntled government

officials had initiated a campaign of making false

anonymous and pseudonymous complaints to various

agencies and started spreading rumours, the applicant

deemed appropriate to send the latest immovable

properties return. This was necessitated that in view of

the fact that in April, 2011, a property which was

purchased from Lucknow Development Authority by

taking a loan, was disposed off and the proceeds of the

disposal were received as refund being given by the

Lucknow Development Authority, a government body.

That this was forwarded to the Additional Director

thorough proper channel and it is reliably learnt that

the same is in the process being sent even to the

Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, on my

request.

Page 18 18

7.It is submitted that on 05.05.2011, there has been

an attempt to intimidate the applicant after hearing of

the 2G Spectrum case was concluded before this

Hon’ble Court. The applicant has received a letter

purported to be sent by the respondent No.3, Shri

Subodh Jain, which contain wielded threat to start a

campaign against the applicant with a view to

intimidate and, thus, interfered in the ongoing

investigations against the Sahara Group companies in

the 2G Spectrum case.

On 05.05.2011, a copy of the said letter has been

delivered by hand at the office of the applicant and at

15.43, the same is received on FAX of the Dy. Director,

Directorate of Enforcement, copies thereof are annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-F (COLLY).

8.The response to the queries raised is being

produced in a sealed cover together with documents

supporting the same for perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

The only purpose of producing it in a sealed cover is to

see such future intimidation to torpedo the ongoing

investigation does not take place. The applicant

respectively declares before this Hon’ble Court that he

is ready and willing to file an affidavit of these

disclosures before this Hon’ble Court.

9.The petitioner applicant respectfully submit that it

is, thus, clear that only with a view to dissuade the

petitioner, who is the Investigating Officer, to carry the

investigation in the right direction against the Sahara

Group, the respondents, and more particularly in the 2G

Spectrum case, that the respondents have attempted

to intimidate which is nothing sort of contempt of this

Hon’ble Court since not only the investigation is

monitored by this Hon’ble Court, but, this Hon’ble Court

has given directions as contained in their lordship’s

judgment dated 16.12.2010 and 16.03.2011, which are

Page 19 19

being carried out by the applicant in the matter of

investigation of 2G Spectrum case.

10.It is respectfully submitted that this attempt by

the respondents to intimidate the applicant, who is the

Investigating Officer is clearly an attempt to interfere or

an attempt which tends to interfere with or obstruct or

tends to obstruct the administration of justice and is

thus a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section

2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. It is

submitted that this is an attack on the investigating

officer carrying out the directions of this Hon’ble Court

in his way to obstruct the course of justice by

preventing the petitioner, who is the Investigating

Officer, from carrying out the directions of this Hon’ble

Court.

11.That this conduct is intended to impeach,

embarrass and obstruct the applicant in the discharge

of his duties and carrying out directions of this Hon’ble

Court. It is respectfully submitted that it is expected

out of the applicant that he is able to conduct the

investigation free from any outside interference and the

present letter dated 05.05.2011 intending to cause

embarrassment to the applicant and detract him from

the ongoing investigation is clearly an act of

interference that would jeopardize the ongoing

investigation and thus hamper the petitioner from

carrying out the directions of this Hon’ble Court.

12That this communication is intended to influence

the petitioner publically and, thus, target him with an

intention that the petitioner may not carry on the

ongoing 2G Spectrum investigation as well as other

investigations against the Sahara Group.”

Page 20 20

17.We are of the view that if the allegations raised against the

contemnors are accepted, then we have to conclude prima facie

that there has been an attempt by the respondents to interfere

with an investigation undertaken by the petitioner which is being

monitored by this Court. The petitioner has stated that he has

also filed a complaint of violation under the Foreign Exchange

Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) to the extent of Rs.4600 Crores

against five more companies including M/s S-Tel and he is in the

process of filing five complaints involving an amount of Rs.1800

Crores under the FEMA, 1999 and is also in the process of issuing

an order of attachment as contemplated under the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002.

18.We may point out that the allegations raised by the

petitioner in the contempt petition are of very serious nature and,

if proved, would amount to interference with the administration of

justice, especially in a court monitored investigation. In a court

monitored investigation, if the Officer who is entrusted with the

task of carrying on that investigation is experiencing any threat or

pressure from any quarters, he is duty bound to report the same

Page 21 21

to the court monitoring the investigation. The Officer should

have the freedom to carry on his duty entrusted, without any fear

or pressure from any quarters. The petitioner has invoked Article

129 and Article 142 to apprise this Court of the difficulties he

faces while carrying on a court monitored investigation.

19.Let us examine the extent of the power conferred on this

Court under Article 129 of the Constitution, which reads as

follows:

“Article 129. Supreme Court to be a court of

record – The Supreme Court shall be a court of record

and shall have all the powers of such a court including

the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

20.We are of the view that the Courts, if they are to serve the

purpose of administering the justice, must have the power to

secure obedience to the orders passed by it to prevent

interference with its proceedings. Law is well settled that the

powers of the Supreme Court in contempt matters are not

confined merely to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act

and the Rules framed thereunder. Law of Contempt, as is often

said, is only one of the many ways in which the due process of

Page 22 22

law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to

further the cause of justice. This Court has plenary power to

punish any person for contempt of court and for that purpose it

may require any person to be present in Court in the manner it

considers appropriate to the facts of the case. This Court in

Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

v. State of Gujarat and others (1991) 4 SCC 406, examined at

depth the scope of Article 129 of the Constitution and stated as

follows:

“The power of the Supreme Court and the High

Court being the Courts of Record as embodied under

Articles 129 and 215 respectively cannot be restricted

and trammeled by any ordinary legislation including the

provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Their

inherent power is elastic, unfettered and not subjected

to any limit. The power conferred upon the Supreme

Court and the High Court, being Courts of Record under

Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution respectively is

an inherent power and the jurisdiction vested is a

special one not derived from any other statute but

derived only from Articles 129 and 215 of the

Constitution of India and therefore the constitutionally

vested right cannot be either abridged by any

legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be

controlled or limited by any statute or by any provision

of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules. The

caution that has to be observed in exercising this

inherent power by summary procedure is that the

power should be used sparingly, that the procedure to

be followed should be fair and that the contemnor

Page 23 23

should be made aware of the charge against him and

given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself….

Entry 77 of List 1, Schedule 7 read with Article 246

confers power on the Parliament to enact law with

respect to the Constitution, organization, jurisdiction

and powers of the Supreme Court including the

contempt of the Supreme Court. The Parliament is thus

competent to enact a law relating to the powers of

Supreme Court with regard to ‘contempt of itself’ such

a law may prescribe procedure to be followed and it

may also prescribe the maximum punishment which

could be awarded and it may provide for appeal and for

other matters. But the Central Legislature has no

legislative competence to abridge or extinguish the

jurisdiction or power conferred on the Supreme Court

under Article 129 of the Constitution. ……….”

21.This Court, again, in I. Manilal Singh v. Dr. H. Borobabu

Singh and another (1994) Suppl. (1) SCC 718 has delineated

the plenary powers of this Court and stated that the power

conferred on this Court under Article 129 is a constitutional power

which cannot be circumscribed or delineated either by the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Rules or even the Rules to

Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975,

framed in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Contempt of

Court Act, 1971, read with Article 145 of the Constitution of India.

Page 24 24

22.We are of the view that, assuming, there has not been any

proper compliance of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971, as contended by the learned senior counsels for the

respondents, that would not deter or take away the constitutional

powers conferred on this Court under Article 129 of the

Constitution of India to examine, whether, there has been any

attempt by anybody to interfere with an investigation, which is

being monitored by this Court. The jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court under Article 129 of the Constitution is independent of the

Contempt of Courts Act and the powers conferred under Article

129 of the Constitution cannot be denuded, restricted or limited

by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

23.Article 142 of the Constitution also confers powers on this

Court to pass such orders as is necessary for doing complete

justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The said Article

142 reads as under:

“Article 142. Enforcement of decrees and orders

of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.

( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its

jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order

as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause

or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed

Page 25 25

or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the

territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed

by or under any law made by Parliament and, until

provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as

the President may by order prescribe

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this

behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as

respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and

every power to make any order for the purpose of

securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or

production of any documents, or the investigation or

punishment of any contempt of itself.”

24.Article 142 is conceived to meet situations which cannot be

effectively and appropriately tackled by existing provisions of law.

In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.

(P) Ltd. and another (1996) 4 SCC 622, this Court has held that

the very fact that the power is conferred only upon the Supreme

Court, and on no one else, is itself an assurance that it will be

used with due restraint and circumspection; keeping in view the

ultimate object of doing complete justice between parties and the

Court’s power to do complete justice is not confined by any

statutory provision.

25.We may indicate that the petitioner has inter alia invoked

the jurisdiction and power conferred on this Court under the

Page 26 26

above-mentioned constitutional provisions and hence the consent

of the Attorney General is not necessary. Petitioner is only

expected to bring to notice of this Court the problems he

confronts with while carrying on a court monitored investigation

and it is the duty and obligation of this Court to see, rather than

the petitioner, that nobody puts any pressure or threat on an

Officer entrusted with the duty to investigate a court monitored

criminal investigation. Any interference, by anybody, to scuttle a

court monitored investigation would amount to interfering with

the administration of justice. Courts, if they are to serve the

cause of justice, must have the power to secure obedience to its

orders to prevent interference with the proceedings and to

protect the reputation of the legal system, its components and its

personnel, who on its behest carry on a court monitored

investigation. The court is duty bound to protect the dignity and

authority of this Court, at any cost, or else, the entire

administration of justice will crumble and law and order would be

a casualty.

Page 27 27

26.We are, therefore, of the view that the petition filed under

the above mentioned provisions is perfectly maintainable and this

Court has got a constitutional obligation to examine the truth of

the allegations as to whether the respondents are attempting to

derail the investigation which is being monitored by this Court.

We, therefore, issue notice to the respondents to show cause why

proceedings be not initiated against them for interfering with the

court monitored criminal investigation.

………………………… J.

(G.S. Singhvi)

………………………… J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi,

December 9, 2013.