NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Maharashtra Assembly Vilas Athawale and said that the threat administered through the letter “was unprecedented and interfered with the administration of justice.”
A bank from CJI SA Bobde and judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian seriously considered the following sentences in letter to Arnab goswami: “He was informed that the proceedings of the Chamber are confidential … Despite this, it has been observed that he presented the proceedings of the Chamber before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2020. No prior authorization was obtained from the Spokesperson for the Maharashtra assembly … You have knowingly violated the orders of the Speaker … and your actions amount to a breach of confidentiality. This is definitely serious business and amounts to contempt. ”
Goswami Councilor Harish Salve said the Maharashtra government was adopting all possible tactics to harass its client and sought protection from arrest by the state assembly in breach of privilege move initiated against him for using harsh language against the CM and for not prepending the CM’s name with Hon’ble. He went on to suggest that the court could initiate suo motu contempt process against the officer for attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.
The court agreed with Salve, protected Goswami from arrest and sought the help of Attorney General KK Venugopal. It stated, “The statements made by Athawale are unprecedented and tend to interfere with the course of the administration of justice. Athawale’s intention appears to be to intimidate the petitioner because the petitioner approached this court and threaten him with a sanction for seeking legal redress ”.
The CV said that the secretary of the assembly “would have done well to understand that the right to address the CV under article 32 of the Constitution is in itself a fundamental right.” The court said: “There is no doubt that if a citizen of India is discouraged from going to this court in exercise of his right under article 32 of the Constitution, it would amount to direct and serious interference in the administration of justice “. He noted that the lawyer did not appear on behalf of the Maharashtra assembly despite being notified. During the hearing, the court sought out Chief Defender AM Singhvi, who was running for the Maharashtra government. Singhvi, however, stayed away from the subject of contempt and expressed his “inability to explain or justify the content of the aforementioned letter.”
The court asked Athawale to respond before November 23 to its notification asking why a contempt procedure was not initiated against him by virtue of the summary contempt powers conferred on SC through article 129, to which the SC appealed. to punish the lawyer. Prashant Bhushan. The court also appointed lead attorney Arvind Datar as amicus curiae.
The bank made caustic remarks against Athawale. “We have serious doubts about the intention of this officer … Even the privilege committee (of the assembly) cannot tell a person not to approach SC. How could this officer say this? We have never seen such a letter or attitude from an assembly official, ”he said.
.
