LEILA DAVID versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

LEILA DAVID versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

There is a difference of opinion between the judges. Summary imprisonment for contempt in the face of the Court without complying with Section 14(1) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is improper; mandatory statutory safeguards must be followed to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. Matters referred to larger Bench.

Parties
Petitioner: Leila David; Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.; Petitioner in Person: G.E. Vahanvati, SGI (A.C.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (crl.) / Criminal Original Jurisdiction; Referred to Larger Bench
Outcome
Difference of opinion; referred to larger Bench; contemnors to remain in custody till matter heard by appropriate Bench.
Legal Topics
Contempt in the Face of the Supreme Court, Procedure Under Section 14 of Contempt of Courts Act, Article 21, 129, 142 of Constitution
Contempt of Court Constitutional Law Contempt in the Face of the Supreme Court Procedure Under Section 14 of Contempt of Courts Act Article 21, 129, 142 of Constitution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leila David

Petitioner

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Respondent

G.E. Vahanvati, SGI (A.C.)

Petitioner in Person

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (crl.) / Criminal Original Jurisdiction; Referred to Larger Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary imprisonment of alleged contemnors for contempt in the face of the Supreme Court without following the procedure under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is valid.
  2. 2 Whether Article 142 of the Constitution empowers Supreme Court to dispense with mandatory statutory requirements for contempt proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

There is a difference of opinion between the judges. Summary imprisonment for contempt in the face of the Court without complying with Section 14(1) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is improper; mandatory statutory safeguards must be followed to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21. Matters referred to larger Bench.

Court Disposition

Difference of opinion; referred to larger Bench; contemnors to remain in custody till matter heard by appropriate Bench.

Orders

  • Registrar directed to take contemnors into custody from Court premises.
  • Contemnors to suffer three months' simple imprisonment (order passed by Pasayat, J; disagreed by Ganguly, J).