THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.623 OF 2011 DATED 4th JULY, 2014 Between:
T.Sriranga Rao and others.
… Petitioners and K.Aravind Rao, aged about 60 years, Director General of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad, and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.623 OF 2011
O R D E R
(Per Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This contempt case was filed by four Advocates complaining that the named respondents, police officials holding the offices mentioned hereunder in 2011, were guilty of gross contempt of the order of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU V/s. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[1] and praying that they be punished under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1971’). The first respondent is K.Aravind Rao, Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh. The second respondent is A.K.Khan, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. The third respondent is Akun Sabharwal, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad. The fourth respondent is A.K.Chakrapani, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, and the fifth respondent is S.Sudhakar, Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, Secunderabad.
It is the case of the petitioners that they were arrested at around 6.00 PM on 10.03.2011 from different locations in Hyderabad on the instructions of the first, second and third respondents. They allege that the first and fourth petitioners were physically assaulted on the instructions of the fourth respondent and in the presence of the fifth respondent and that they were abused in filthy language. They further allege that the Police forcibly removed the black coats worn by the first, second and third petitioners in Gandhinagar Police Station. They assert that several others were also abused and beaten in the Police Station on the instructions of the third and fourth respondents. They state that one N.Kishore, who was arrested at the same time, informed the first petitioner in the presence of the third respondent that he was beaten on the head with a helmet by the third respondent and sustained bleeding injuries. They further state that their arrest and that of others was monitored by the first, second and third respondents from time to time and instructions were issued by them to the fourth and fifth respondents. The petitioners assert that at the time of their arrest on 10.03.2011, none of the police officers were wearing identification/name tags and that some of them were in mufti. No arrest memo was prepared and no one was informed of their arrest. The same was the case with others also. They complain that their arrest was never recorded on that day and that they were interrogated in Gandhinagar Police Station by several police officers belonging to different wings, including the fourth and fifth respondents, who were not wearing identification/name tags.
The petitioners state that they were taken from Gandhinagar Police Station at about 11.00 PM on 10.03.2011 to Falaknuma Police Station and that they were not given any food or water during the night. The petitioners allege that at Falaknuma Police Station, they were made to sit on the dirty floor along with others through out the night. No facilities were provided the next morning for attending to nature calls. There were about 50 persons in the Police Station and they were treated like hardened criminals and no amenities were given to them. They further assert that on 11.03.2011 at 9.00 AM, they were taken to Bollarum Police Station and kept there till 8.00 PM. They assert that there were no complaints against them and merely because they were in the forefront of the agitation for Telangana and were providing legal support to arrested students and others by filing bail applications, they were arrested to wreak vengeance against them, in particular, and against Advocates in general. They state that the first respondent issued an automex message on 21.02.2011 to all Police Officers in the State to book FIRs against all the leaders who were supporting the agitation for separate Telangana. As Advocates were leading the agitation and the ‘Million March’ call was supported by the Telangana Joint Action Committee, they allege that they were arrested without basis. They further assert that during the night of 10.03.2011 and through out the day on 11.03.2011, there were several meetings amongst the respondents and on the instructions of the first respondent, FIRs were prepared implicating the petitioners in various crimes with the back date 10.03.2011. These FIRs bear Nos.59/2011, 60/2011 and 61/2011 on the file of the Gandhinagar Police Station. These FIRs were filed before the Magistrate concerned at 4.15 PM on 11.03.2011 and on transfer of the cases to the CCS, Hyderabad, the cases were re-registered as Crime Nos.66/2011, 67/2011 and 68/2011 respectively.
The petitioners further state that on 11.03.2011 at about 12.30 PM they were taken to the Cantonment Hospital at Bollarum and were examined. Examination of the second and third petitioners led to the recording of injuries on their bodies. The petitioners assert that they were not served any food even in Bollarum P.S. and at 8.00 PM they were taken to Gandhinagar Police Station and on their demand, their arrest was intimated to their friends at 10.00 PM and then they were taken to the residence of the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. There, they were handed over to the CCS Police as the case had been transferred to them. The remand proceedings were completed at 6.00 AM on 12.03.2011 as 55 persons were produced and the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody. The Magistrate recorded the statements of the petitioners and they complained to him about police high-handedness and non-compliance with legal requirements. Medical examination reports were produced before the Magistrate but neither the petitioners’ medical reports nor their arrest intimation to their friends find place in the Court record. This is evidenced by the return of the first petitioner’s application on the ground that the same were not found in the records. This aspect was brought to the notice of the concerned Magistrate by filing a memo and is under enquiry. The petitioners reiterate that they were arrested at 6.00 PM on 10.03.2011 and were produced before the Magistrate concerned only on 11.03.2011 at about 11.00 PM i.e., more than 24 hours after their arrest. The petitioners draw attention to paras 35 and 36 of D.K.BASU1, wherein the Supreme Court set out the requirements to be followed in cases of arrest or detention and failure to comply with the same rendered the official concerned liable to punishment for contempt of court by the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. It is on the strength of this edict that the petitioners filed the present case.
The petitioners allege that the first, second and third respondents were well aware of the Supreme Court directions in D.K.BASU1 but instead of directing the subordinate officers to follow the same, they actively connived in the violation thereof and were therefore responsible for the same. The petitioners allege that the respondents have scant respect for the directions of the Supreme Court and Constitutional provisions. The petitioners further allege that for more than one year, commencing from 29.11.2009 onwards, in all the cases of arrest connected with the Telangana movement, police officers in Hyderabad who were under the direct control of the first and second respondents were not following the directions issued in D.K.BASU1 and were deliberately and intentionally violating the law declared by the Supreme Court. Persons arrested were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and arrest memos were not prepared. Arrested persons were being manhandled in the Police Station using third degree methods. The police were routinely not producing the arrested persons before the Magistrate on the day of their arrest in Hyderabad and they were being produced in the residence of the Magistrate so as to deny them bail. The petitioners asserted that the respondents were therefore directly responsible for violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU1 and that their contempt was willful, deliberate and intentional, thereby rendering them liable for punishment under the provisions of the Act of 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution.
The first respondent filed a counter stating that on 10.03.2011, a mass protest under the name ‘Millennium March’ was organized by a political party. Though permission was denied for the same by the second respondent, the march took place illegally. The area where the march was organized falls within the jurisdiction of Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU1, all officers were instructed to adhere to the same scrupulously. In order to maintain the law and order situation, instructions were given to the police to register cases against the agitators, irrespective of political affiliation, for any criminal violation of the law. Submission of a representation on 11.03.2011 by the Bar Association of the Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, about the arrest of the petitioners was denied. Having retired from service, the Officer stated that he was unable to recall whether any petition was given in his office and that such a petition, in any event, would have been sent to the Commissioner of Police for further action. The arrest of the petitioners was stated to be in accordance with law, after due registration of cognizable offences against them. The first petitioner was also stated to be Accused No.11 in Crime No.270 of 2010 on the file of the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 353, 506 and 153-A read with 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. This offence was registered on the complaint lodged by the Registrar of the High Court for offences committed in the High Court premises. Similarly, the fourth petitioner also figured as Accused No.5 in Crime No.8/ACB-CIU- Hyd/2012 for offences under Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 34, 109 and 219 IPC on the file of the Central Investigation Unit, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad. Monitoring of the arrest of the petitioners by the first, second and third respondents was admitted and was justified in the light of the breakdown of law and order on 10.03.2011 owing to the ‘Millennium March’. No deliberate or willful violation of any legal provision or Court direction was stated to have taken place. The first respondent stated that he was a public servant and had the highest regard and respect for judicial pronouncements.
The second respondent filed a separate counter stating that permission was denied under proceedings dated 08.03.2011 for the ‘Millennium March’ organized on 10.03.2011 on Upper Tank Bund Road. In spite of the same, the event took place. The mobs indulged in vandalism and damaged the Telugu Heritage Idols on the Upper Tank Bund Road. The police had to resort to minimum use of force to control the situation. Several Police Officers including the DCP, Central Zone, ACP, Chikkadpally, and the Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, were injured in the mob violence. The mob also damaged and set on fire police vehicles; video cameras and electronic equipment etc. 29 cases were registered on the file of the Gandhinagar Police Station in this regard and were thereafter transferred to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, as Crime Nos.66 to 68 of 2011. The arrest of the petitioners was stated to have been in accordance with law, after due registration of cognizable offences against them. Receipt of a representation from the Bar Association of the Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, as to their arrest was denied. The officer stated that he had the greatest respect for the directives issued by the judiciary and that the Supreme Court directions had been scrupulously followed. He concluded by stating that as a public servant he had highest regard and respect for the judiciary and its orders and prayed for closure of the contempt case.
The third respondent, in a separate affidavit, stated that he worked as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad, from 25.04.2010 to 11.11.2011. He reiterated that permission had been denied for organization of the ‘Millennium March’ on the Tank Bund Road on 10.03.2011, but despite the same the event took place. 10,000 protesters in two groups entered upon the said road and indulged in vandalism. The fourth and fifth respondents were stated to have been posted at Ambedkar Arch under the supervision of the third respondent to perform their duties. While so, a group of 2500 to 3000 persons, including the petitioners, was stated to have entered into the stretch of the Upper Tank Bund Road from Ambedkar Statue side breaking the police cordon, while the other group of 2500 to 3000 persons entered upon the road from the Viceroy Hotel side. They then damaged the Telugu Heritage Idols. The police had to fire 20 rounds of tear gas shells to bring law and order under control. Total damage was caused to 12 statues while 5 were partially damaged.
The mob was stated to have pelted stones at the police party who were performing their duties and as a result thereof, several police personnel, including the third respondent, received injuries. Government vehicles and electronic communication equipment were also damaged in this process. 54 persons, including the petitioners, were stated to have been taken into custody at various places in and around the Tank Bund Road and 29 cases were registered at Gandhinagar Police Station. The allegation of the petitioners that the first petitioner was arrested at Narayanguda, that the second petitioner was arrested at RTC X Road, that the third petitioner was arrested at Musheerabad and that the fourth petitioner was arrested at MLA Quarters, Hyderabad, was denied. The records of the Gandhinagar Police Station reveal that the first and second petitioners were taken into custody near Marriot Hotel, along with two other persons by name N.Kishore and Mohammed Jahangir. The third and fourth petitioners were arrested at Children’s Park on the Tank Bund Road along with 9 others. This is clear from the arrest memos issued by the Gandhinagar Police Station which record that they were taken into custody on 10.03.2011 at 18.00 hours and their arrest was affected at 20.00 hours. The allegation that the fourth petitioner was assaulted by Rajeshwar, Writer-cum-Constable and Sridhar, Constable, as per the instructions of the fourth and fifth respondents was denied. None of the arrested persons were assaulted by any police personnel. The allegation that N.Kishore, one of the accused in a registered case, was beaten on the head and other parts of his body by the third respondent with a helmet resulting in bleeding injuries was also denied. He further stated that all the police personnel on duty on the said date were wearing uniforms and name tags and none were in mufti. The records reveal that the arrest of the petitioners was duly entered by issuing arrest memos, but the petitioners refused to put their signatures on the said memos. These arrest memos were furnished to the counsel of the petitioners, V.Rajendar Rao and E.Rajender Rao, Advocates. The arrest of the accused was also intimated to one Tirupati Yadaiah, s/o. Kondaiah, President of Telangana Municipal Employees and Workers Association. Both the Advocates referred to above were available at the time of the arrest but they acknowledged only the arrest of Accused No.7, the second petitioner herein. The arrest of the petitioners was recorded in Gandhinagar Police Station records on 10.03.2011. All steps were taken to see that the arrested persons were treated well and were provided proper facilities including food, water and sleeping accommodation. Copies of the FIRs were filed before the Magistrates concerned at 16.15 hours on 11.03.2011. On the instructions of the second respondent, all the cases registered on the file of the Gandhinagar Police Station, pertaining to the ‘Millennium March’ were transferred to the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. On 11.03.2011, a Sub-Inspector of Police from Gandhinagar Police Station was deputed to Bollarum Police Station at 17.00 hours to bring the arrested persons, so that they could be produced before the Magistrate. Accordingly, those lodged in Bollarum Police Station were brought to Gandhinagar Police Station and were handed over to the Central Crime Station. The other accused who were in Falaknuma Police Complex were produced before the Magistrate at his residence. The Gandhinagar Police Station was surrounded by agitators in the meanwhile and they did not allow the police personnel to move out along with the petitioners for more than two hours. This continued till the intervention of the fourth respondent, who had to come to Gandhinagar Police Station with additional force. The petitioners were then produced before the Magistrate at 23.00 hours and they were enlarged on bail. The petitioners were therefore arrested on 10.03.2011 at 20.00 hours and were produced before the Magistrate at 23.00 hours on 11.03.2011. The officer stated that there was no deliberate and willful violation of the provisions of the law or the directions of the Courts. The officer further stated that he is a public servant and had highest regard and respect for the judiciary and judicial pronouncements and that there was no violation of any direction of the Supreme Court, as alleged by the petitioners.
The fourth respondent stated in his affidavit that he worked as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikkadpally Division, Hyderabad, from 22.05.2010 to 01.12.2011. He stated that during the mob violence, police personnel including the third, fourth and fifth respondents received injuries.
The fifth respondent, in his affidavit, stated that he had worked as Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, from 29.12.2008 to 26.05.2011. The area where the ‘Millennium March’ event took place fell within the jurisdiction of his Police Station. He reiterated the contents of the affidavit filed by the third respondent as to the events that took place on the fateful day.
The petitioners filed a reply through the first petitioner. This reply was filed in response to the counters of respondents 1 to 4. They reiterated that they were arrested first and that the crime was registered on the next day on the instructions of the first, second and third respondents. They further asserted that they were all arrested at about 06.00 PM on 10.03.2011 and that there was no difference between detention and arrest as sought to be made out by the police. They again contended that the respondents had scant respect for the directions of the Supreme Court and had deliberately and willfully violated the same.
They denied that the first and second petitioners were arrested near Marriot Hotel and that the third and fourth petitioners were arrested near the Children’s Park on the Tank Bund. They denied that they had refused to sign the arrest memos and that information of their arrest was given to their friends or relatives. They further denied that arrest memos were furnished to their Advocates, V.Ravinder Rao and E.Rajender Rao. They stated that they had nothing to do with the injuries, if any, received by the police and the damage to the statues on the Tank Bund Road. They asserted that they were beaten on the instructions of the respondents and that they had narrated the misbehaviour of the police before the Hon’ble Magistrate. Allegations were reiterated to the effect that they were denied proper facilities and the factum of their being shifted from one police station to another at a huge distance was stated to support them in this regard. They pointed out that there was no explanation as to why the FIR, if it was really registered on 10.03.2011, was not filed before the Court till 4.15 PM on 11.03.2011. They denied the allegation of the police that the first and fourth petitioners were trying to bring pressure on the police owing to pendency of criminal cases. The first petitioner stated that he had come to know of the case filed against him for the first time through the counter of the respondents. He asserted that he had been falsely implicated in that case and was not involved in the incident alleged to have taken place in the High Court premises. The case against the fourth petitioner was stated to be after institution of this contempt case and therefore had no relation thereto.
It is in the backdrop of the aforestated pleadings that this Court must examine whether the respondents have committed ‘contempt’, within the meaning of the Act of 1971, vis-à-vis the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU1. That was a case taken up by the Supreme Court in public interest basing upon a letter about deaths and violence in police lock-up and custody. It was in this context that the Supreme Court issued the following directions in para 35.
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
Para 36 of D.K.BASU1 makes it clear that failure to comply with the requirements mentioned in para 35 would render the official concerned liable for departmental action and also to punishment for contempt. Further, proceedings for contempt in this regard could be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The petitioners accordingly filed this contempt case before this Court.
A brief conspectus of the legal position on the subject would be apposite at this stage.
Contempt jurisdiction is vested in a Court for the purpose of securing confidence of the people and for due and proper administration of justice in the country. Proceedings under the Act of 1971 are quasi- criminal in nature and therefore, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. Powers under the Act of 1971 should be exercised with utmost care and caution and that too, rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power under the Act of 1971 should thus be a rarity and that too in a matter in which there exists no doubt as regards initiation of the action being bonafide. Mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a “civil contempt” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 — the element of ‘willingness’ is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. A doubt in the matter as regards the ‘wilful nature’ of the conduct, if raised, the question of success in the contempt petition would not arise. [ANIL RATAN
[2]
SARKAR V/s. HIRAK GHOSH ].
Civil Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 means ‘wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court’. ‘Wilful’ means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something law forbids or to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute ‘contempt’ the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should it be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
[ASHOK PAPER KAMGAR UNION V/s. DHARAM GODHA
[3]
].
Thus, to establish the ingredients of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971, there must be disobedience to the judgment or order of the Court and such disobedience must be ‘wilful’. Punishing a person for contempt of court is a drastic step and normally, such action should not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and the majesty of law which may call for such an extreme step. If for proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the order passed by the Court, it is required to take a strict view under the Act, the Court should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. [PATEL RAJNIKANT DHULABHAI V/s. PATEL CHANDRAKANT
[4]
DHULABHAI ].
In the light of this legal position, it is necessary that the petitioners establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent police officials disobeyed the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU1 and that such disobedience was ‘wilful, intentional and deliberate’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971.
Having duly weighed the pleadings, arguments and material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have utterly failed to do so. Perusal of the petitioners’ affidavits reflects that no specific and verifiable allegations have been made against any of the respondents as to wilful disobedience to any of the directives of the Supreme Court. General averments have been made traveling beyond the scope of the said directives without proof or even possibility of confirmation. In para 7 of their contempt petition affidavit, the allegation is made that the first and fourth petitioners were physically assaulted by two Constables on the instructions of the fourth respondent in the presence of the fifth respondent. There is no allegation that any of the petitioners specifically heard the fourth respondent instructing the Constables to assault them. Similarly, the presence of the fifth respondent at that point of time is also not established. In para 8 of the said affidavit, the petitioners merely alleged without any support that the police abused and beat several others in the police station on the instructions of the third and fourth respondents. The persons allegedly beaten up could have very well come up with affidavits to say what is being said by the petitioners. The further allegation of the petitioners that the police officers were not wearing identification/name tags and that some of them were in mufti is denied by the respondents and being in the realm of a disputed question of fact, it cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction without having legally acceptable proof. No supporting affidavits have been filed by the petitioners from any of the others housed in the police station to confirm their allegation in this regard. The assertion of the petitioners that arrest memos were not prepared on the same day and that information was not given to anyone about their arrest was denied by the respondents. The material filed by the police officers supports their contention that the arrest memos were, in fact, prepared on the date of the arrest. No ground is made out to brush aside this documentary evidence.
The statement recorded by the Magistrate which has been filed by the petitioners, no doubt, indicates that the accused produced before him alleged that they were subjected to physical violence by the police. However, there is no corroboration of this statement. The counter- affidavits filed by the respondent police officers demonstrate that minimum force was resorted to and there was also tear gas shelling at the venue of the protest to disperse the violent mob which gathered there with the sole intention of causing damage to life and property. In those circumstances, it is possible that those involved in the protest and the resulting pandemonium caused by the police action would have sustained injuries. Therefore, no value can be attached to the evidence relied upon by the petitioners to prove that they suffered police abuse. Mere presence of bodily injuries on the petitioners does not lead to the irrefutable conclusion that such injuries were inflicted by the police.
As matters stand, though various allegations have been made by the petitioners charging the respondent police officers with responsibility for alleged disobedience to the order of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU1 and their assertion that such disobedience was wilful, deliberate and intentional, this Court finds no evidence to support their allegation that the named respondents were guilty of any specific violation of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K.BASU1 and that such violation was wilful and deliberate. The directives contained in para 35 of D.K.BASU1 required the police to take various steps while effecting arrest, including maintenance of proper record thereof. No evidence is placed before this Court that such steps were not taken or proper entries were not made in the records. The case of the petitioners is founded on general allegations and no specific averment is made with supporting proof to indict any of the named respondent police officers. This Court therefore finds that the ingredients of ‘civil contempt’ as defined by Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 are not established as against any of the named respondents. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
--------------------------------------------- KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, CJ 4th JULY, 2014 PGS
[1] (1997) 1 SCC 416
[2] (2002) 4 SCC 21
[3] (2003) 11 SCC 1
[4] (2008) 14 SCC 561 ------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J