SURAZ INDIA TRUST VS UNION OF INDIA

 

SURAZ INDIA TRUST VS UNION OF INDIA

 

CITATION:

2021 SCC ONLINE SC 833

BENCH:

JUSTICESANJAY KISHAN KAUL

JUSTICE MM SUNDRESH

CASE DESCRIPTION:

The present case deals with the action which was brought against Mr. Rajiv Daiya who was the chairman of the trust, for filing numerous petitions before the Supreme Court and majority of which were not legitimate and lacked justification.  In this case the Supreme Court stated that the presentation made by the trust was undoubtedly disturbing due to the allegations made by the petitioner against three Supreme Court judges and six Rajasthan High Court judges.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Suraz India Trust a public trust, which is registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The aim of the trust is to preserve the rights of complainants in cases of injuries and to challenge those elements of the law which they consider unlawful., Mr. Rajiv Daiya, chairman of the trust filed various mattersbefore the Supreme Court and majority of the issues dealt with specific provisions of the Judges(Inquiry) act, various sections ofsupreme court rules, and some articles of the Indian constitution. The petitioner also filed several petitions regarding the unlawfulness of these articles, considering them arbitrary in nature. The above-mentionedmatters were taken up in 64 different proceedings before the Court and were personally defended by the Chairman, Mr. Rajiv Daiya. However, none of the cases were brought before the Court was successful, as the Court held that the trust’s actions were and reckless and not reasonable. Thereafter the Court ordered Mr. Rajiv Daiya to submit a voluntary statement stating that the Suraz India Trust will not file any petitions in the public interest andif the trust complies with the rulings, the matter will be closedand the court will not take further action against the trust.

 

ISSUES RAISED:

1.     Whether petition had been filed bonafide?

2.     Whether the section 3 of the judges (enquiry) act 1968, be held unconstitutional, being violative of article 124(4) and article14?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

1.      The petitioner was dissatisfied with the decision rendered by the court andduring the hearing, the petitioner placed some documents in which he considered that the court did not adequately deal with any petitions he filed in the past. 

2.     The petitioner believed thatRegistrar and Assistant Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had rejected the petition on technical grounds by claiming that case was never brought before the bench for adjudication.

3.     Thereafter petitioner stated that he was a victim of all three tiers of the Rajasthan judiciary and also believed that even the Supreme Court would defend the actions of the Rajasthan judiciary, while considering that three judges holding office in the Supreme Court were from Rajasthan.

4.      The petitioner then concluded that if he remains unheard despite filing of a mercy petition then the President Secretariat will be solely responsible for these consequences for defending various branch of the judiciary and overlooking about ordinary people’s grievances. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

1.      It was noted that there was no legal basis for presenting the case to an eleven-judge panel.

2.     Conclusions drawn by the petitioner are the consequence of his lack of maturity and knowledge.

3.     Challenges that are made by the trust before this court are legally inadmissible, andno doubt that actions adopted by the trust lacked jurisdiction and by bringing 64 petitions, the trust had wasted the Court’s time and gained nothing out of it.

 

 

JUDGEMENT:

 The Supreme Court stated that the presentation made by the trust was really very disturbing due to the allegations made by the petitioner against three Supreme Court judges and six Rajasthan High Court judges. Thereafter the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s slander against the judges and stated that respect for the Courts and the decisions delivered by them must always be maintained to ensure public respect for the judges. The Court in the present case refused to grant an amicus curiae because the court the observe, that the petitioner faced challenges while formulating complicated issues but he could easily explain and clarify factual matters and project his implicationsas he understood them clearly.

The petitioner tried his last method through the present writ petition in January2017 praying to declare section 3of the Judges(enquiry)Act1968 asunconstitutional because it violates article 124(4) and article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 124(4) of Indian constitution read as follows:

 “124(4)A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two - thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Article 14 of Indianconstitution  read as follows:

“14. Equality before law -The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”

 The Court found it very difficult to analyse that what a trust would benefit from this case and why the petitioner has repeatedly approached this Court on complicated legal issues without rendering any assistance. 

Thereafter  the court turned to the judgment in Roshan Lal Ahuja, In Rewhere “Disparaging remarks and slander deliberately and repeatedly made against the Supreme Court and its Judges in memorandum of writ petition and in representation made before the President of India in connection with order of reduction in rank and subsequent dismissal from service of the contemnor was held to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of public and to bring administration of justice into disrepute thenthe contemnor was directed to suffer four months simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.”

The Court also held that an apology cannot be a defence and a justification can be accepted if it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the Court held in the case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P.

Further On 1/05/17, the Court directed a sum of 25 Lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner for wasting the judge’s time. And also, the Court permanently banned Mr. Rajiv Daiya from filing any public interest litigation either by himself or by any other individual due to misconceived petitions filed before the Court. The above costs shall be recoverable from the trust within 3months from the given date andif the trust fails to deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated time, it shall be recoverable from the Chairman of the Suraz India Trust, Mr. Rajiv Daiya.