HomeNewsIndiaPower to punish for contempt cannot be abridged, taken away even by legislative enactment: SC

Power to punish for contempt cannot be abridged, taken away even by legislative enactment: SC

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said the chairperson of NGO Suraz India Trust, Rajiv Daiya, is clearly guilty of contempt of this court and his actions to scandalise the court cannot be countenanced.

September 29, 2021 / 21:22 IST
Story continues below Advertisement

The Supreme Court of India on September 29 said its power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment as it held the chairperson of an NGO guilty of contempt for not depositing Rs 25 lakh for "scandalising and browbeating" the court.

Refusing to back off, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said the chairperson of NGO Suraz India Trust, Rajiv Daiya is clearly guilty of contempt of this court and his actions to scandalise the court cannot be countenanced. The top court also said the raison d'etre (reason or justification for being or existence) of contempt jurisdiction is to maintain the dignity of the institution of judicial forums. It issued notice to Daiya and directed him to be present on October 7 for a hearing of the quantum of sentence.

Story continues below Advertisement

The court had earlier rapped the NGO for wasting judicial time after it filed 64 petitions over the years under the garb of a PIL without a single success. "The power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power vested in this court which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment."

"We have little doubt that what the contemnor has been endeavouring is to have his way or, alternatively, I will throw mud at all and sundry, whether it be the Court, its administrative staff or the state government so that people, apprehensive of this mud thrown, may back off. We refuse to back off and are clear in our view that we must take it to its logical conclusion," the court said.