MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1 OF 2019 IN RE: MR. MATHEWS NEDUMPARA versus . on 27 March 2019

O R D E R

1. By a judgment dated 12[th] March, 2019 in National LawyersCampaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Ors. vs. Unionof India and Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 191 of 2019), this Bench heldthat Shri Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate has committed contempt inthe face of the Court. In the interest of justice, however, notice wasissued to Shri Nedumpara as to the punishment to be imposed upon himfor committing contempt in the face of the Court.

2. Shri Nedumpara appeared today before us both by himself andthrough Advocate Shri Subhash Jha.

3. In the morning session, Shri Nedumpara did his best to see thatthe matter was not heard by this Bench. He informed us that a TransferPetition was filed asking the Chief Justice of India to transfer this casefrom this Bench to some other Bench. He also stated that he was goingto file an application for recall of our order dated 12[th] March, 2019. Hethen cited latin maxims and said that justice must be seen to be done.He also referred to the famous Rex vs. Sussex Justices case and referredgenerally to the fact that relatives of Judges should not be seen practicingin the same Court. He later asked the Bench to grant a “pass over” of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ahis matter inasmuch as his lawyer Shri Subhash Jha was on his wayfrom Mumbai. The Bench agreed and placed the matter at 2.00 p.m.

4. At 2.00 p.m., Shri Jha came and addressed us, and pointed outSections 14 (1) & (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 together withSection 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also made variousBother submissions which the Court reminded him were not on thepunishment aspect of this case. He continued, however, arguing as if hewas arguing a review petition in the open Court. While Shri Jha wasarguing, Shri Nedumpara stepped in again and went on a long ramble asto how he had not in fact impersonated Justice Vazifdar, which is one ofthe many incidents referred to in our judgment dated 12[th] March, 2019.CAt this stage, Shri Nedumpara then tendered an apology to this Court byway of an affidavit duly signed by him in the Court in our presence. Theaffidavit reads as follows:- “AFFIDAVIT

I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate, aged 60 years, IndianInhabitant, residing at Harbour Heights, “W” Wing, 12-F, 12[th] Floor,Sassoon Docks, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005, now in Delhi, do herebyswear and state as follows:- D

1. A Bench of this Hon’ble Court comprising Hon’ble Shri JusticeRohinton F. Nariman and Hon’ble Shri Justice Vineet Saran, byjudgment and order dated 12[th] March, 2019, was pleased to holdme guilty for contempt in the face of the Court and list the casefor hearing on the question of punishment.

E

2. I happened to mention the name of Shri Fali S. Nariman tobuttress my proposition that even legendary Shri Fali Nariman isof the view that the seniority of a lawyer should be reckonedfrom the date of his enrolment and nothing else. However, I wasmisunderstood. I along with some office bearers of the NationalLawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms haveinstituted Writ Petition No.2199/2019 in the High Court of Delhifor a declaration that the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Bar Councilof India Rules is void inasmuch as it explains that the word “Court”does not mean the entire Court, but the particular Court in whichthe relative of a lawyer is a Judge. I instituted the said petitiononly to raise the concern many lawyers share with me regarding F

G

H

the immediate relatives practising in the very same Court wheretheir relative is a Judge. In retrospection I realize that it was anerror on my part to have arrayed Shri Fali Nariman as aRespondent to the said petition. I regret the same; no words cansufficiently explain my contrition and regret. I also in retrospectionrealize that I have erred even during the conduct of the abovecase before this Hon’ble Court and I probably would not havekept upto what is expected of me as a lawyer in the Bar for 35years and crossed the age of 60. I feel sorry, express my contritionand tender my unconditional apology, while maintaining that someof the accusations levelled against me in the judgment dated 12[th]March, 2019 are absolutely wrong, which are, ex facie, black andwhite, and as incontrovertible as day and night.

3. The apology tendered by me hereinabove be accepted and Imay be purged of the contempt.

Solemnly sworn at Delhi

Sd/-

this 27[th] day of March, 2019

(Mathews J. Nedumpara)”

We have considered the affidavit so filed in the light of the incidentsthat have taken place in the Bombay High Court as well as in this Court.

5. Given the fact that Shri Nedumpara now undertakes to thisCourt that he will never again attempt to browbeat any Judge either ofthis Court or of the Bombay High Court, we sentence Shri Nedumparato three months imprisonment which is, however, suspended only if ShriNedumpara continues in future to abide by the undertaking given to ustoday. In addition, Shri Nedumpara is barred from practicing as anAdvocate before the Supreme Court of India for a period of one yearfrom today. This disposes of the punishment aspect of the contemptthat was committed in the face of the Court.

6. A letter dated 23.03.2019, received by the office of the Judgesof this Bench on 25.03.2019, is a letter that is sent to the President ofIndia, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Courtof Bombay by the President of the Bombay Bar Association and thePresident of the Bombay Incorporated law Society. The aforesaid letterstates:

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“We have come across, in the social media, copies of the followingcomplaints purportedly made against Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F.Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, Judges, SupremeCourt of India.

1. A complaint made with Your Excellency’s Secretariat by one‘Indian Bar Association’ dated 20[th] March, 2019 bearing GrievanceNo.PRSEC/E/2019/05351 (“the first complaint”), through oneAdvocate Mr. Vijay Kurle, against sitting Judges of the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Narimanand the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, seeking permission toprosecute the Learned Judges and withdrawal of judicial workfrom them for having passed a Judgment dated 12[th] March, 2019convicting Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for having committedcontempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It has beenaddressed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Indiaand a copy thereof has been endorsed to Your Lordship the Hon’bleChief Justice, Bombay High Court.

2. A complaint dated 19[th] March, 2019 made with YourExcellency’s Secretariat bearing Grievance for RegistrationNo.PRSEC/E/2019/05242 (“the second complaint”) by one Mr.Rashid Khan Pathan said to be the National Secretary, HumanRights Security Council, seeking similar directions/permissionsagainst the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and the Hon’bleMr. Justice Vineet Saran for having passed another order in anothermatter. It has been addressed to Your Excellency and YourLordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

Copies of these purported complaints which have been circulatedin the social media are annexed as Annexure”1"and Annexure”2".”

7. The prayers made in the complaint filed by the Indian BarAssociation are as follows:- “(i) Taking actionAction be taken under Section 218, 201, 219,191, 192, 193, 466, 471, 474 read with 120(b) and 34 of IndianPenal Code against Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and JusticeVineet Saran for passing order by willful disregard, disobedienceand misinterpretation of law laid down by the Constitution Benchof Hon’ble Supreme Court with intention to terrorize advocates.

(ii) Immediate direction be passed for withdrawal of all worksfrom Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran asper ‘In-House-Procedure’.

(iii) Directions be given to Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman andJustice Vineet Saran to resign forthwith by following the directionof Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI)and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655as the incapacity, fraud on power andoffences against administration of justice are ex-facie proved.

OR

(iv) Applicant be accorded sanction to prosecute Justice RohintonFali Nariman under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471,474 read with 120(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

v) Direction be given for Suo Motu action under Contempt ofCourts Act as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017)7 SCC 1, Justice Markandey Katju’s case & in Rabindra NathSingh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417for willful disregardof law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in :-

a) Vinay Chandra Mishra’s case AIR 1995 SC 2348 (Full Bench)

b) Dr. L.P. Misra vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 379 (Full Bench)

c) Leila David vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC337

d) Nidhi Kaim & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017)4 SCC 1

e) Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy EngineeringWorks AIR 1997 SC 2477

f) Sukhdev Singh Sodhi vs. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR454

g) Mohd. Zahir Khan vs. Vijai Singh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 642.”

8. The prayers made in the complaint filed by the Human RightsSecurity Council are as follows:- “i) Action be taken under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193,466, 471, 474 read with 120 (b) and 34 of Indian Penal Codeagainst Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saranfor passing order by willful disobedience of law laid down by the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHon’ble Supreme Court with intention to help the accused husbandin serious case of practicing fraud upon the Court.

ii) Immediate direction be passed for withdrawal of all works fromJustice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran as per‘In-House-Procedure’.

B

iii) Directions be given to Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman & JusticeVineet Saran to resign forthwith by following the direction ofConstitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India (UOI)and Ors. 1991 (3) SCC 655as the incapacity, fraud on power andoffences against administration of justice are ex-facie proved.

C

OR

(iv) Applicant be given sanction to prosecute Justice RohintonFali Nariman under Section 218, 201, 219, 191, 192, 193, 466, 471,474 read with 120(b) and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

D(v) Direction be given for Suo Motu action under Contempt ofCourts Act as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan’s Case (2017)7 SCC 1, Justice Markandey Katju’s Case and in RabindranathSingh vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2010) 6 SCC 417for willful disregardof law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in :- P.C.Purushothama Reddiar vs. s. Perumal 1972 (1) SCC 9 (FULLEBENCH), Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs. BOC India Limited andOrs (2016) 3 SCC 70, Surendra Gupta vs. Bhagwan Devi (Smt.)and Another, (1994) 4 SCC 657, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd.vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. And Another AIR1997 SC 2477, State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales (2018)11 SCC 659, Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi MarwahF-& Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370 (5Judge Bench). In Re Suo MotuProceedings against R. Karuppan (2001) 5 SCC 289 (Full Bench),Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jackde Sequeira (Dead) through L.Rs AIR 2012 SC 1727.”

9. It can be seen on a comparison of the prayers in both theGcomplaints that they are substantially similar showing that prima faciethe aforesaid Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan are actingin tandem. Also, the complaints are dated 20[th] March, 2019 and 19[th]March, 2019. Para 3.14 of the said letter is significant and reads asfollows:

H

“3.14 The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay IncorporatedLaw Society have reason to believe that Mr. Nilesh Ojha and Mr.Mathews Nedumpara are in tandem with one another. In Criminalcontempt Petition No.3 of 2017, which was initiated as a result ofvarious acts of Mr. Nilesh Ojha and his associates, Mr. MathewsNedumpara appeared for one of the contemnors. Similarly, in aPetition being Writ Petition (L) No.1180 of 2018 filed by Mr.Mathews Nedumpara against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawallaalleging “judicial defamation” and seeking compensation, Mr.Nilesh Ojha appeared for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. The timingat which these complaints have been made after the benchcomprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and Hon’bleMr. Justice Vineet Saran of the Supreme Court of India held Mr.Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of Court and also thecontents of the complaint of Indian Bar Association make itapparent that these complaints are made to browbeat the Courtfor having initiated contempt proceedings against Mr. MathewsNedumpara. It is pertinent to note that the Standing/ManagingCommittees of all the three Bar Associations attached to theBombay High Court being Bombay Bar Association, Advocates’Association of Western India, and the Bombay Incorporated LawSociety passed Resolutions appreciating and welcoming thejudgment dated 12[th] March, 2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtof India.

Copies of the said Resolutions are hereto annexed and markedas Annexures “13”, “14” and “15”.”

10. We annex the aforesaid letter dated 23.03.2019 to the presentorder.

11. Given the two complaints filed, it is clear that scandalousallegations have been made against the members of this Bench. We,therefore, issue notice of contempt to (1) Shri Vijay Kurle; (2) Shri RashidKhan Pathan; (3) Shri Nilesh Ojha and (4) Shri Mathews Nedumpara toexplain as to why they should not be punished for criminal contempt ofthe Supreme Court of India, returnable within two weeks from today.

12. Given the serious nature of the allegations levelled against thisBench, the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench tohear and decide this contempt case.

ABC

DE

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 8 S.C.R.

AAnnexed letter dated 23.03.2019 to the present order BOMBAY BARTHE BOMBAY INCORPORATEDASSOCIATIONLAW SOCIETYRoom No. 57, 3[rd]Floor, High Court,High Court New Building, NorthDr. M. Kane Marg, Boombay - 400032Wing, Bombay - 400032

B

23rd March 2019

To,

(1) The Hon’ble President oflndia, Rashtrapati Bhavan,New Delhi - 110 004

(2) The Hon’ble Chief Justice oflndia, Supreme Court of India,CTilak Marg, New Delhi- I 1020 I

(3) The Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Bombay,Bombay High Court,Fort, Mumbai - 400032

Re :Factual perspective to the frivolous Complaints madeDagainst Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman and Hon’bleMr. Justice Vineet Saran, Hon’ble Judges of theSupreme Court of India and registered as

(i) Grievance No. PRSEC/E/2019/05351.

(ii) Grievance No. PRSEC/E/2019/05242.

EYour Excellency and Your Lordships,

The Bombay Bar Association is the oldest Bar Association in the country,established in the year 1824 with recorded history ofover 150 years. Bombay BarAssociation has over these years relentlessly strived for protection of theindependence of the judiciary and protection of rule of law. Bombay BarFAssociation has played a pivotal role in protest against Emergency, protectingpersonal liberties and anack on the judiciary in supersession ofjudgesparticularly during Emergency.

The Bombay Incorporated Law Society is an association of Solicitors inthe city of Mumbai anached to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court with a historydating back to 1894. The Bombay Incorporated Law Society has made valuableGcontribution to the legal profession including supporting and protecting theindependence of the judiciary over the years.

We have come across, in the social media, copies of following complaintspurportedly made against Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and Hon’ble JusticeVineet Saran, Judges, Supreme Court of India.

H

1. A complaint made with Your Excellency’s Secretariat by one ‘IndianBar Association’ dated 20[th]March 2019 bearing Grievance No. PRSEC/E/2019/0535 l (“the first complaint”), through one Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle, againstsitting Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of [ndia, the Hon’ble Mr. JusticeR.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran. seeking permission toprosecute the Learned Judges and withdrawal of judicial work from them forhaving passed a judgment dated 1t[h ]March 2019 convicting Mr. MathewsNedumpara for having committed contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia. It has been addressed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Indiaand a copy thereof has been endorsed to Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice,Bombay High Court.

2. A complaint dated 19[th]March 2019 made with Your Excellency’sSecretariat bearing Grievance for Registration No. PRSEC/E/2019/05242 (“thesecond complaint”) by one Mr. Rashid Khan Pathan said to be the NationalSecretary, Human Rights Security Council, seeking similar directions/permissionsagainst the Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice VineetSaran for having passed another order in another matter. It has been addressedto Your Excellency and Your Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

Copies of these purported complaints which have been circulated in thesocial media are annexed asAnnexure “I”andAnnexure “2”.

3. We would like to bring to your notice the following facts in this regard:

3.1. The complainant in the first complaint, Indian Bar Association, is neithera recognised Bar Association nor a Bar Association attached to theHon’ble Bombay High Court. We have reasons to believe that the saidbody is a self- serving body floated by one Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Advocateand Mr. Vijay Kurle and is used as a platform to intimidate the judiciaryas a whole and in particular to settle personal vendetta against Hon’bleJudges of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court oflndia.

3.2. Mr. Nilesh Ojha, the purported National President of the complainant hadappeared in a matter before the Bombay High Court wherein an orderwas passed against his client. lmml!diately aller the order, Mr. Nilesh Ojhamade various scurrilous and contemptuous allegations against theHon”ble Judge who passed the order. The videos of persons whoseinterests were represented by Mr. Ojha and of Mr. Ojha making scandalousand scurrilous allegations against the Hon’ble Judge were also uploadedon the Internet through ‘YouTube’ website. Mr. Yijay Kurle was also oneof the persons who gave interviews which were uploaded makingscurrilous and scandalous statements against the Learned Judge. Mr.Rashid Khan, the complainant in the second complaint was also one ofthe parties who gave interview and made scurrilous and scandalous A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

statements. The Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates’Association of Western India being the two recognised Bar Associationsattached to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court have already filed a CriminalContempt Petition in the Bombay High Court against various partiesincluding Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Mr. Vijay Kurle and Mr. Rashid Khan afterobtaining consent from the Advocate General of Maharashtra. TheContempt Petition was heard for admission. In the said Contempt Petition,the complainant in the second complaint Mr. Rashid Khan was also aRespondent. By an order dated 22[nd]February 2017, a Division Bench ofthe Hon’ble Bombay High Court, after considering the videos and thetranscripts thereof, observed that the said materials were an attempt toscandalise the Court and calculated 10 interfere with the administration ofjustice. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said Contempt Petition byvarious orders also directed that the offending videos be removed fromthe internet at large and restrained dissemination of the same / similarvideos. The Petition was admitted and notices were issued to variousRespondents including Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Mr. Vijay Kurle and Mr. RashidKhan as to why they should not be punished for contempt of Court.

A

B

C

D3.3. The Division Bench further observed that Mr. Nilesh Ojha was threateningto prosecute the judges of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and thereforethe Contempt Petition is of great importance to the institution of thejudiciary and concerns the independence of the judiciary. The matterwas directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the HighCourt for being placed before a larger Bench of 3 or more judges. AEContempt Petition is pending before a 5-Judge Bench of the Hon’bleBombay High Court. Annexed hereto and marked asAnnexure “3”and“4”are copies of the said Criminal Contempt Petition (No. 3 of 2017) filedby the two Bar Associations (without exhibits) and the orders passedtherein. It is pertinent to note that in these contempt proceedings, Mr.Mathews Nedumpara, Advocate appeared to defend one oftheFcontemnors.

3.4. In the Contempt Petition, the Petitioners have also set-out at length howin the past, Mr. Nilesh Ojha had initiated proceedings against sittingjudges and also his conduct as recorded in various proceedings.

3.5. In early 20 I7, the Bombay Bar Association and Advocates’ AssociationGof Western India also passed resolutions deprecating these scurrilousattacks on judges and expressing full faith in the Learned Judge of theBombay High Court against whom allegations were made. Copies of theMinutes of Meetings where the said resolution was passed by theBombay Bar Association is hereto annexed and marked as Annexure“5”.

H

3.6. Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Mr. Vijay Kurle and their associates have a history ofmaking frivolous allegations against Judges, if they do not get favourableorders in cases they appear in. They have made allegations against varioussitting judges of Bombay High Court and “Indian Bar Association” istheir front which is apparently established as a self-serving associationto make frivolous allegations against judges and lawyers.

3.7. Not being satisfied with the contumacious acts, a vexatious representation/ complaint was addressed by Indian Bar Association to Your Excellencyin 2018 against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla, a judge of the BombayHigh Court seeking permission to prosecute the Learned Judge andmaking similar allegations and seeking similar directions. The BombayBar Association made a representation to Your Excellency by a letterdated 30[th]June 2018 exposing the ‘modus operandi of these persons’,their systematic attempt of making allegations against sitting judges andeven Advocates appearing against them. In the complaint againstHon’ble Mr. Justice S J. Kathawalla, the Indian Bar Association hadmade false allegations that the Learned Judge had a soft corner forcertain Advocates and sought a CBI inquiry and audit of cases handledby the said Advocates. In the representation of the Bombay BarAssociation, it was pointed out that each of the said lawyers had in thepast appeared either against Mr. Nilesh Ojha or against Mr. MathewsNedumpara and that they were being named only to malign them and todeter the said Advocates from appearing against them.

A copy of the representation of the Bombay Bar Association (withoutexhibits) is annexed asAnnexure “6”hereto.

3.8. Mr. Nilesh Ojha had earlier filed a malicious complaint dated 3[rd] December2015 with Your Excellency’s Secretariat seeking resignation and criminalprosecution against Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Menon, judge of BombayHigh Court who had passed an order against Mr. Nilesh Ojha’s client andissued criminal contempt notice against Mr. Nilesh Ojha for makingscandalous allegations against Advocates appearing against him. Thecomplaint was rejected as it was without any verifiable fact. A copy of thecomplaint status and grievance lodged against Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K.Menon is annexed hereto and marked asAnnexure“7”.

A copy of the order dated 22[nd ]January 20 16 passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.K. Menon against Mr. Nilesh Ojha is annexed hereto andmarked asAnnexure “8”hereto.

3.9. Mr. Nilesh Ojha through another client of his Mr. Gopal Shetye (who is alsoone of the contemnors in the Contempt Petition filed by Bombay BarAssociation and Advocates’ Association of Western India) had got fileda complaint in the State Bar Council against various Advocates who A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Aappeared against him (Mr. Ojha) in Bombay High Court Suit No. 471 of2016, the proceedings in which led to the initiation of the Criminal Contemptproceedings as mentioned hereinabove.

3.10. Similarly, Mr. Gopal Shetye, with Mr. Nilesh Ojha appearing for him, hadearlier attempted to prosecute another judge of the Hon’ble BombayHigh Court, being Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Kanade (now retired) and hadBfiled a criminal complaint seeking prosecution along with compensationfor defamation of Rs. 500 Crores against the Judge for having passed ajudicial order against Mr. Shetye. The Sessions Court dismissed Mr.Gopal Shetye’s application as not maintainable. A writ petition seekingcompensation of Rs. 200 crores against the Hon’ble Judge for havingpassed judicial orders was also filed in the Bombay High Court, andCrejected by an Order dated 5[th]May 2017.

Hereto annexed and marked asAnnexure“9”is a copy of the Order dated1[st ]February 2017 passed by the Sessions Court and Annexure11 10"is a copy of the Bombay High Court Order dated 5[th]May 2017.

3.11. Mr. Nilesh Ojha in Suit No. 471 of 2016 initiated proceedings seekingDprosecution of distinguished Senior Advocates, Mr. Aspi Chinoy and Ms.Rajani Iyer and prayed that they be stripped of their senior designations.The said applications were rejected and contempt proceedings wereinitiated against Mr. Nilesh Ojha which are referred to hereinabove.

3.12. In the aforesaid Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of 2017 initiated byEBombay Bar Association and Advocates’ Association of Western Indiaagainst Mr. Nilesh Ojha & Ors., Mr. Nilesh Ojha filed applications seekingprosecution against the office bearers of Bombay Bar Association andAdvocates’ Association of Western India who had affirmed the CriminalContempt Petition.

3.13. The Indian Bar Association also filed an application before Your ExcellencyFdated 23[rd] January 2019 numbered as PRSEC/E/2019/01530 against sittingjudges of the Bombay High Court being Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Tated,Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Colabawala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.J. Jamdarfor having passed certain judicial orders. The said complaint was signedby Mr. Vijay Kurle. The Bombay Bar Association responded to the saidcomplaint pursuant to a Resolution ofthe Standing Committee and forwardedGthe same to Your Excellency’s Secretariat, bringing to notice the correctfactual perspective.

A copy of the said complaint and the representation dated 29[th] January2019 made by the Bombay Bar Association are annexed at Annexures “11”and“12”hereto.

H

3.14. The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay lncorporated Law Societyhave reason to believe that Mr. Nilesh Ojha and Mr. Mathews Nedumparaare in tandem with one another. In Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of2017,which was initiated as a result of various acts of Mr. Nilesh Ojha and hisassociates, Mr. Mathews Nedumpara appeared for one of the conternnors.Similarly, in a Petition being Writ Petition (L) No. 1 180 of 2018 filed by Mr.Mathews Nedumpara against Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla alleging“judicial defamation” and seeking compensation, Mr. Nilesh Ojhaappeared for Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. The timing at which thesecomplaints have been made after the bench comprising of Hon’ble JusticeR.F. Nariman and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran of the Supreme Courtof India held Mr. Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of Court andalso the contents of the complaint of Indian Bar Association make it apparentthat these complaints are made to browbeat the Court for having initiatedcontempt proceedings against Mr. Mathews Nedumpara. It is pertinentto note that the Standing/Managing Committees of all the three BarAssociations attached to the Bombay High Court being Bombay BarAssociation, Advocates’ Association of Western India, and the BombayIncorporated Law Society passed Resolutions appreciating and welcomingthe judgment dated 12[th] March 2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court oflndia.

Copies of the said Resolutions are hereto annexed and marked asAnnexures“13”,”14 “ and “15”.

4. The allegations made in the complaints against the Learned Judgesofthe Supreme Court of India under reference are false, vexatious and designedto intimidate and browbeat the judges. The allegations are in respect of theiracts in discharging judicial duties. The remedy of a person aggrieved by such ajudicial order is to take legal recourse by filing an appeal or other appropriateproceeding and a judge cannot be asked to be prosecuted for passing orders injudicial proceedings, which a person perceives as wrong or contrary to law. Thisis also clearly impermissible in view of the provisions of the Judges (Protection)Act, 1 985 passed by Parliament. In fact, the Indian Bar Association has gone tothe extent of saying that the order was passed by the bench of the Hon’bleSupreme Court for ulterior reason of protecting a High Court Judge. The saidallegation is false, scandalous and scurrilous.

5. It is thus clear that the complaints under reference are yet anotherattempt to scandalise, terrorise and intimidate judges of the Supreme Court oflndia. The Bombay Bar Association and the Bombay Incorporated Law Societyhave reposed their full faith and confidence in the Hon’ble Judges against whomthe complaints have been made from time to time.

ABCD

EF

G

6. The attempts like the present complaints are malicious and frivolousattempts by disgruntled lawyers and parties to terrorise and intimidate judgesand sent them a signal that they will indulge in vilification campaign against thejudges. These attempts ought not to be countenanced. They are a serious threat tothe institution ofjudiciary and its independence which is the backbone of anydemocracy.

A

B

7. We request that the complaints be rejected at the earliest and appropriateactions be taken. We would like to draw your attention to another serious issue thateven the pendency of the application in the Secretariat of Your Excellency hasbeen abused and in the past, prosecutions have been initiated / threatenedagainst judges of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the false and baselesspretext that a lack of response tantamount to Your Excellency’s “deemed consent”Cfor prosecution of the judges. In fact, the complaints under reference filed byIndian Bar Association seek to contend that there was an alleged “deemed consent”by Your Excellency for prosecution of a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court.We, therefore, request Your Excellency to reject the aforesaid complaint so asto thwart this scurrilous and scandalous attempt on the independence of thejudiciary and prevent interference with the administration of justice.

D

Yours truly

E

-sd/.

Dr. Milind Sathe,

President, Bombay Bar Association

-sd/.

Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla,President, Bombay IncorporatedLaw Society Ankit Gyan Appropriate Bench to be constitutedto decide contempt case.

F

G

H