RAJESHWAR SINGH versus SUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.

RAJESHWAR SINGH versus SUBRATA ROY SAHARA & ORS.

Any interference by anybody to scuttle a court monitored investigation amounts to interfering with administration of justice, and the Supreme Court has constitutional obligation and plenary power under Articles 129 and 142 to examine and punish for such contempt. The contempt petition is maintainable without Attorney General's consent when court's constitutional powers are invoked.

Parties
Petitioner: Rajeshwar Singh; Respondent: Subrata Roy Sahara; Respondent: Other Respondents; Respondent: C.B.I.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) No. 224 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 / Maintainability of Contempt Petition; Notice Issued
Outcome
Contempt petition held maintainable; notice issued to respondents.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Court Monitored Investigation, Interference With Administration of Justice
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Judicial Process Contempt of Court Court Monitored Investigation Interference With Administration of Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajeshwar Singh

Petitioner

Subrata Roy Sahara

Respondent

Other Respondents

Respondent

C.B.I.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) No. 224 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 / Maintainability of Contempt Petition; Notice Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been any attempt by the respondents to interfere with a court-monitored investigation by the Supreme Court.
  2. 2 Whether the contempt petition is maintainable without Attorney General's consent.
  3. 3 Scope of constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 for contempt proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Any interference by anybody to scuttle a court monitored investigation amounts to interfering with administration of justice, and the Supreme Court has constitutional obligation and plenary power under Articles 129 and 142 to examine and punish for such contempt. The contempt petition is maintainable without Attorney General's consent when court's constitutional powers are invoked.

Court Disposition

Contempt petition held maintainable; notice issued to respondents.

Orders

  • Notice issued to respondents to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against them for interfering with court-monitored criminal investigation.