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 24

th

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 4

th

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