IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA ..ALLEGED CONTEMNOR

 IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA ..ALLEGED CONTEMNOR


Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
SUO-MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.3 OF 2021
 IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA ..ALLEGED CONTEMNOR
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. The facts and circumstances leading to the recall of the Judgment dated
28.10.2020 and the Order dated 08.12.2020 and issuance of notice for initiation of
contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnor Perry Kansagra (hereinafter
referred to as Perry) were dealt with in sufficient detail in paragraphs 1 to 33 of the
Order dated 7.10.2021 passed by a bench of three judges of this Court in
Miscellaneous Application No.1167 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No.3559 of 2020. For
avoiding repetition of the basic facts, paragraphs 1 to 33 of said Order dated
7.10.2021 be read as part of this Order.
2. After discussing the relevant facts and circumstances in aforesaid paragraphs
1 to 33, paragraphs 34 to 36 of the Order dated 7.10.2021 set out the essential
features of the matter as under:-
2
“34. The documents and the developments referred to hereinabove
show:-
(i) Perry had given an unequivocal undertaking to the High Court that
he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. He had also
given a solemn undertaking to this Court that he would comply with
the Order dated 28.10.2020 in addition to the Judgment dated
28.10.2020.
(ii) In response to a specific submission raised in Miscellaneous
Application No.2140 of 2020 (quoted in paragraph 16 hereinabove),
it was submitted by Perry that he had subjected himself to the
jurisdiction of this Court. While dealing with the rival submissions in
the Order dated 8.12.2020, this Court made it clear that the
undertaking given by Perry to the High Court would continue to be
operative, in addition to the undertaking given to this Court.
(iii) The Judgment dated 28.10.2020 had called upon Perry to obtain a
Mirror Order’ from the concerned Court in Nairobi to reflect the
directions contained in the Judgment dated 28.10.2020. Thereafter,
the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at
Nairobi along with the relevant application moved by Perry seeking
registration of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020, was filed in this Court.
(iv) There was a dispute whether the registration granted vide order
dated 9.11.2020 by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi amounted to
fulfilling the requirement of a “Mirror Order’. The submissions on the
point were dealt with in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Order dated 8.
12.2020. The learned counsel appearing for Perry had relied upon the
opinion given by M/s. GMC Advocates which in turn had relied upon
the decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi in Re: Matter of I
W P (Infant) [2013] eKLR to submit that the registration itself was a
“Mirror Order” in compliance of the requirements of the Judgment
dated 28.10.2020.
Relying on the submissions so advanced on behalf of Perry
and in deference to the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High
Court of Kenya at Nairobi, in paragraph 10 of the Order dated
8.12.2020, this Court observed that the registration of the Judgment
of this Court by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi was sufficient
compliance of the directions to obtain a “Mirror Order” issued from a
Competent Court in Kenya.
(v) The Judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the Order dated 8.12.2020
passed by this Court were thus premised on the submission that the
Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
while registering the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court
was in fact the “Mirror Order’.
3
(vi) It now transpires that by a subsequent Order dated 21.5.2021, the
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi in Paragraph 13 of its order observed
that the judgment of this Court was not registrable and dismissed the
Originating Summons dated 30.10.2020 filed by Perry.
(vii) At no stage Perry brought this development to the notice of this
Court that the Originating Summons moved by him seeking
registration of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court
was dismissed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi on 21.5.2021.
Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts it was the
bounden duty of Perry to keep this Court appraised of all the
developments particularly when the “Mirror Order” was the fulcrum
on the basis of which this Court handed over to him the custody of
Aditya.
(viii) This infraction gets more pronounced in the light of the stand
taken in his Affidavit dated 5.8.2021 filed in this Court and referred to
in Paragraph 22 hereinabove. In that affidavit Perry unequivocally
stated that he had not even the remotest intention to disobey the Order
passed by this Court including the Judgment dated 28.10.2020. Yet,
something as basic and fundamental like the Order dated 21.05.2021
was not brought to the notice of this Court. Logically, Perry should
have brought back Aditya to this country so that status quo ante could
be restored and appropriate orders could thereafter be passed by this
Court.
(ix) Miscellaneous Application No.1167 of 2021 filed by Smriti had
annexed e-mails exchanged between her and Perry and prayed that
Perry be directed to comply with directions regarding vacation access.
In response, apart from stating that he had no intentions to disobey
the orders passed by this Court, Perry voiced concern about sending
Aditya to India. Being well aware of the conditions in this Country, a
solution was devised by this Court in its Order dated 11.08.2021 and
certain directions to facilitate the entry of Aditya into and his exit
from India in a safe manner were issued. Pertinently on 11.08.2021,
the attention of this Court was not invited to the fact that the
Situational Report dated 09.08.2021 as referred to hereinabove was
made or that the matter was being looked into by the concerned
authorities in Kenya.
(X) Despite clear directions issued in the Order dated 11.08.2021
Perry had not taken any steps to comply with the Order. As a matter
of fact, by the time the matter was taken up for further hearing on
16.08.2021, Perry sought to withdraw the authorization in favour of
4
the learned counsel who were all the while representing him before
this Court.
(XI) As disclosed in I.A. 100550 of 2021 week-end Skype meetings
between Smriti and Aditya were not facilitated from the week-end of
14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. Perry also blocked all means of
communications with Smriti. Though in law the learned advocates
who had entered appearance on behalf of Perry would continue to
represent him, notice was additionally directed to be served on Perry
through Indian embassy of Nairobi.
(XII) In the light of the defiant attitude exhibited by Perry and his
refusal to abide by the Orders passed by this court, ad-interim relief in
terms of prayers (d) (e) and (f) made by Smriti in her I.A. No.100550
of 2021 was granted by this Court vide its order dated 17.08.2021.
(XIII) Finally, Petition No.E301 of 2021 and -Notice of Motion were
moved on behalf of Perry, filed in the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
on 26.08.2021. The stand taken by Perry in said Petition and Notice
of Motion is that it would be humiliating to compel Aditya to take
OCI Card; that wishes of Aditya were not ascertained by this Court;
that there was no valid Mirror Order and that the orders passed by this
Court were without jurisdiction. He has prayed for declaration that
there existed no valid “Mirror Order” and in the circumstances the
orders passed by this Court are incapable of compliance and/or
enforcement.
35. These developments not only show the defiant and contumacious
posture now adopted by Perry but prima facie support the
submissions of Smriti made in Interim Applications referred to in
paragraphs 25, 27, and 28 herein above. There appears to be concrete
material and reason to believe that it was a well-planned conspiracy
on part of Perry to persuade this Court to pass orders in his favour and
allow him the custody of Aditya and then turn around and defy the
Orders of this Court.
36. It is fundamental that a party approaching the Court must come
with clean hands, more so in child custody matters. Any fraudulent
conduct based on which the custody of a minor is obtained under the
orders of the Court, would negate and nullify the element of trust
reposed by the Court in the concerned person. Wherever the custody
of a minor is a matter of dispute between the parents or the concerned
parties, the primary custody of the minor, in parens patriae
jurisdiction, is with the Court which may then hand over the custody
to the person who in the eyes of the Court, would be the most suitable
5
person. Any action initiated to obtain such custody from the Court
with fraudulent conduct and design would be a fraud on the process
of the Court.”
3. Thereafter, the relevant decisions on the point as well as the submissions of
the learned Solicitor General, Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok and Ms. Sonia Mathur,
learned Senior Advocates appearing for Smriti Madan Kansagra (hereinafter
referred to as Smriti) and Mr. Anunaya Mehta, learned Advocate were recorded in
the Order dated 7.10.2021 and it was concluded: -
“39. Though, at every juncture solemn undertakings were given by
Perry to the High Court and this Court, such undertakings were not
only flagrantly violated but a stand is now taken challenging the very
jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, despite having submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. Such conduct, prime facie, can
certainly be said to be contumacious calling for an action in contempt
jurisdiction. Moreover, the non-disclosure of material facts by Perry
at the relevant junctures also shows that he approached the Indian
Courts with unclean hands.
40. It was only on the basis of the solemn undertakings given by
Perry and the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the High Court of
Kenya at Nairobi which was projected to be a “Mirror Order” in
compliance of the directions issued by this Court, that the custody of
Aditya was directed to be handed over to Perry. Since the false and
fraudulent representations made by Perry were the foundation, on the
basis of which this Court was persuaded to handover custody of
Aditya to him, it shall be the duty of this Court to nullify, in every
way, the effect and impact of the orders which were obtained by
playing fraud upon the Court. All the decisions referred to
hereinabove point in that direction. This Court would therefore be
well within its power and justified to recall all the orders and continue
to assume jurisdiction to ensure that the situation as it prevailed prior
to the passing of the orders by the Trial Court, the High Court and this
Court, gets restored, whereafter appropriate decision can be taken in
parens patriae jurisdiction.
6
41. It is true that Aditya is now in Kenya. But he was taken to Kenya
only on the basis of fraudulently obtained orders from this Court. In
our considered view, the Indian Courts which were the Courts of first
contact and had complete jurisdiction over Aditya, must continue to
exercise such power and jurisdiction to correct the wrongs which
occurred as a result of fraudulent conduct on part of Perry. It may be
stated here that at every juncture, welfare of Aditya was and will
always continue to be the primary consideration for the Indian Courts.
He was interviewed by very competent and qualified Counsellors
whose reports and assessments have been part of the record. Aditya
was also interviewed by the Trial Court, the High Court and this
Court. At no stage any mistreatment by Smriti was even remotely
suggested or adverted to by Aditya. After Aditya is brought back to
this country, this Court will certainly have appropriate interactions
with Aditya to understand his Wishes while considering his welfare.”
4. In light of the facts and circumstances, following directions were thereafter
issued by this Court in said Order dated 7.10.2021: -
“42. In the premises, we pass following directions:
(A) The Judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the Order dated 08.12.2020
Passed by this Court are recalled.
(B) The Guardianship Petition No.53 of 2012 filed by Perry in the
District Court, Saket, New Delhi seeking permanent custody of
Aditya and the resultant proceedings arising therefrom including
MAT APP (F.C) No.3Q of 2018 filed in the High Court, are
dismissed.
(C) the Orders granting custody having been recalled, the custody of
Aditya with Perry is declared to be illegal and ab initio void.
(D) Issue notice to Perry as to why proceedings in contempt
jurisdiction be not initiated against him for having violated the
solemn undertaking given to this Court, returnable on 16th
November, 2021. The Registry is directed to register Suo Motu
Contempt Case and proceed accordingly.
(E) The notice shall additionally be served through e-mail directed at
r the e-mail id used by Perry in communicating with Smriti. The
details in that behalf shall be furnished to the Registry by Smriti
within two days.
7
(F) The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi through its
Director is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings by registering
criminal proceedings against Perry and to secure and entrust the
custody of Aditya to Smriti.
(G) The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India,
New Delhi and the Indian Embassy in Kenya are directed to ensure
that all possible assistance and logistical support is extended to Smriti
in
securing the custody of Aditya.
(H) From and out of the amount of Rs.1 crore deposited by Perry in
this Court, at this stage, an amount of Rs.25 lakhs be handed over to
Smriti towards legal expense incurred or required to be incurred
hereafter. Rest of the money shall continue to be kept in deposit with
the Registry till further orders.”
5. Pursuant to direction (D) as stated above, the instant Suo-moto Contempt
Petition stands registered against Perry.
6. In its Order dated 25.1.2022, while dealing with the instant petition, this
Court observed:
“Accordingly, the matter is listed before us today to consider whether
charges need to be framed or not. It must a stated here that Mr. Perry
Kansagra has chosen not to file any response in the matter.
Having considered the entirety of the matter, in our view, case is
definitely made out to proceed against Mr. Perry Kansagra in
contempt jurisdiction: -
i) For having willfully violated the directions issued by this Court,
and;
ii) for having acted in breach of solemn undertakings given to the
courts including this Court, and;
jii) for having obstructed the course of justice and committed criminal
contempt of Court.
8
The Registry is, therefore, directed to issue notice to Mr. Perry
Kansagra in terms of Rules to Regulate Proceeding for Contempt of
the Supreme Court, 1975 in Form I appended to said Rules. The
Registry is further directed to quote the relevant portions of
Paragraphs 38 to 40 of the order dated 7th October, 2021 as well as the
prima facie observations as stated above, warranting initiation. of
proceedings in Contempt.
Let notice be made returnable on 8 March, 2022. Mr..Perry
Kansagra is directed to remain personally present on the next date of
hearing.
In addition to the regular mode of service, the notice shall be
served in the same manner as was done on the earlier occasion and
the office of the learned Solicitor General is requested to take
appropriate steps in the matter.
Mr. Perry Kansagra is at liberty to file response to the
proceedings on or before 22™ February, 2022, with advance copy to
the other side.”
7. Since despite being served, Perry had not appeared, following order was
passed by this Court on 8.3.2022:
“While directing initiation of contempt proceedings and
issuance of notice in Form-I appended to the Rules to Regulate
Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, vide order
dated 25.01.2022, notice was directed to be issued to Mr. Perry
Kansagra.
According to the office report, notice has been issued through
Ministry of Law & Justice by Speed Post on 03.02.2022 as well as
“through e-mail as was done on the earlier occasion”. However, the
office report states that status of delivery has not been received from
the Ministry of Law & Justice so far.
Though the office report indicates that notice was issued
through e-mail “as was done on earlier occasion”, for removal of
doubts, the Registry is directed to send notice to be served upon Mr.
Perry Kansagra through e-mail ID from which communications were
received on behalf of Mr. Perry Kansagra.
9
Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
applicant Ms. Smriti Madan Kansagra, submits that it has been four
months but Ms. Smriti Madan Kansagra is unaware about the status
of proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
We, therefore, call upon the Central Bureau of Investigation to
file the Status Report before the next date of hearing. Let an
appropriate intimation be sent by the Registry to the Central Bureau
of Investigation.”
8. Accordingly, status report was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation
and the matter was taken up on 11.4.2022 when the following order was passed by
this Court:
“Status report has been submitted by the CBI which indicates
that Look Out Circular has already been issued by the CBI. A copy of
the report be given to Ms. Smriti Madan Kansagra.
IA No.53272 of 2022 has been filed by her seeking permission
to place on record certain additional documents. Having considered
the application, in our view, said documents must be made a part of
the record.
Reliance is placed by her on the order dated 9.3.2022 passed
in SLP (Crl.) No.2018 of 2020, in terms of which in similar
circumstances, direction was issued commanding CBI to issue Red
Corner Notice to secure the presence of the first respondent who was
a foreign national.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate prays for similar
direction in the instant matter.
Paragraph 5 of said order dated 09.03.2022 discloses that
there was failure on part of the first respondent-husband to abide by
the terms and conditions imposed by the High Court. The
observations were made by this Court that such conduct may invite
action in contempt jurisdiction. In so far as the instant matter i,
concerned, this Court has already issued notice while exercising
contempt jurisdiction.
10
The CBI is therefore, directed to issue Red Corner Notice to
secure the Presence of Perry Kansagra. Since the minor child was
secreted away as a part of design referred to and dealt with in the
earlier orders, we also direct the CBI to issue Yellow Corner Notice to
secure the presence of the child.
As the earlier orders indicate, we have initiated proceedings in
contempt petition and have already given sufficient time to Mr. Perry
Kansagra to respond to those notices and yet no response has been
filed.
We, therefore, direct the contempt petition to be listed on
21.04.2022 at 03:00 pm for final disposal.”
9. We heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate for Smriti and Mr.
Rajat Nair for Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr. P. K. Manohar, learned
Advocate for Perry, however declined to advance any submissions.
10. Ms. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate highlighted the acts of contempt by
Perry under two segments namely those prior to July, 2021 and some which were
after July, 2021. The acts of contempt as described in the Notes of Arguments
submitted on behalf of Smriti were:-
“3. In the respectful submission of Smriti, the following are the acts
of contempt by Perry prior to July 2021:
i. The following are the affidavits/undertakings given by Perry,
which have been wilfully breached by him:
a. Undertaking/affidavit dated 02.08.2020 given to the
Delhi High Court wherein he undertook to “honour and
comply with the visitation rights given to Smriti” as well
as undertook to “submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian
Courts”.
b. Undertaking/affidavit dated 30.10.2020 filed by Perry
before this Hon’ble Court pursuant to the judgment dated
28.10.2020 that he would comply with the majority
11
decision dated 28.10.2020 without any demur and in
letter and spirit.
c. Affidavit dated 20.11.2020 filed by Perry which
accompanied the “mirror order” wherein Perry stated that
the purported order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the
Kenyan High Court was a “mirror order”.
d. Perry Kansagra filed and continued to rely on the
purported mirror order dated 09.11.2020 in his reply to
M.A. No. 2140/2020, Copy of affidavit of compliance
dated 20.11.2020 filed by Perry and Copy of Affidavit
dated 26.11.2020 in support of the documents filed by
him.
e. Affidavit dated 09.12.2020 filed by Perry in compliance
of the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by this Hon’ble
Court wherein he state that he “shall truly and faithfully
abide by the order dated 08.12.2020”.
f. The order dated 08.12.2020 accepted the undertaking of
Perry Kansagra submitting to the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
ii. Removing Aditya from the Indian jurisdiction on 10.12.2020
based on the aforementioned false undertakings/affidavits and
legally untenable purported “mirror order”.
iii. Perry’s deliberate failure to comply with the directions to another
“mirror order” as directed in paragraph 21 (D) of order dated
08.12.2020.
iv. As is evident from the aforementioned deliberate and wilful
conduct Petty, it is most respectfully submitted that Perry
kidnapped the child from Indian jurisdiction and removed the
child from parens patriae of the Court. Perry has abused the
process of this Hon’ble Court.
4. The following are the acts of contempt committed by Perry post
July, 2021.
i. Refusal to bring Aditya to India for Smriti to avail her visitations
in terms of the judgment dated 28.10.2020 and order dated
08.12.2020.
ii. Having the purported “mirror order” dated 09.11.2020 set aside
by Kenyan High Court by order dated 21.05.2021.
iii. Supressing the order dated 21.05.2021 passed by the Kenyan
High Court – Not filing the said order before this Hon’ble Court
either voluntarily when the said order was passed or with his
reply dated 05.08.2021 to MA No.1167/2021 or with his reply
dated 05.08.2021 to MA No.1167/2021 or with application dated
12
09.08.2021 to place additional documents or with documents
filed on 11.08.2021.
iv. Refusal by Perry Kansagra to get the child to India to be
interviewed by this Hon’ble Court in terms of the order dated
08.12.2020.
v. In Perry’s reply and affidavit dated 05.08.2021 to MA No.
1167/2020, Perry stated that he is complying with the directions
of this Hon’ble Court passed on 28.10.2020 and 08.12.2020.
vi. Deliberate breach of the order dated 11.08.2021, i.e. not sending
Aditya to India on 13.08.2021 and not applying for Aditya’s OCI
card at the Indian High Commission at Nairobi, Kenya.
vii. Discharging his counsels at a crucial stage on 15.08.2021 i.e.
when this Hon’ble Court had listed the matter for compliance the
orders dated 11.08.2021, 08.12.2020 and 28.10.2020, and sought
the assistance of Perry’s counsels in this regard.
viii. Deliberately snapping off all ties between Aditya and Smriti, not
only by not sending Aditya to India on 13.08.2021, but also
stopping all Skype access from 15.08.2021, thereby deliberately
and wilfully breaching the orders dated 28.10.2020 and
08.12.2020.
ix. Initiating proceedings before the Kenyan High Court in violation
of his aforementioned undertakings/affidavits and the order dated
17.08.2021 where a world-wide ad interim ex-parte anti suit
injunction order was passed by against Perry from proceeding
qua the custody/guardianship of Aditya. The tone and tenor of
the Perry’s petition, affidavit and notice of motion are
contumacious, scandalous and made in an overt attempt to lower
the majesty of this Hon’ble Court.
x. Obtaining an order dated 30.08.2021 from the Kenyan High
Court restraining Smriti from taking Aditya out of Kenya or his
custody, in violation of the orders dated 11.08.2021 and
17.08.2021. Perry has deliberately sought to remove this
Hon’ble Court as the parens patriae of Aditya.
xi. Perry continued and deliberate refusal to appear before this
Hon’ble Court from 15.08.2020 (after he discharged his
advocates) and blocked Smriti on all usual forms of
communication (email and WhatsApp).
xii. Perry’s refusing to accept the repeated attempts of the service of
the process of this Hon’ble Court in the contempt proceedings.
[elaborated in point no.6]
xiii. Perry’s continued refusal to appear before this Hon’ble Court in
person despite the order dated 18.10.2021, 01.02.2022 and
16.03.2022 passed in SMC No.3 of 2021.”
13
11. Our attention was also invited to the decisions in a) Hadkinson vs.
Hadkinson1
, where the court held that the removal of a child by a custodial parent
in violation of the orders passed by the court, was contempt of the grossest kind;
and that the contemnor would not have any right to be heard until the child was
brought back to the jurisdiction of the court; b) Regina vs. Jones (Robert)2
, where
the Court of Appeal held that the applicant had waived his right to be present at the
trial by his conduct in absconding and in such circumstances, the judge had a
discretion to allow the trial to proceed in the absence of the applicant; and c) of this
Court in the matter of Anil Panjwani3
. It was thus submitted that unless and until
Aditya was brought back to the jurisdiction of this Court, Perry would not be
entitled to be heard in the matter and that the instant contempt proceedings could
as well be taken to logical conclusion in his absence.
It was further submitted that the conduct of Perry in tendering affidavits and
undertakings containing false statements was not only fraudulent but also
amounted to perjury and criminal contempt. The decisions of this Court in
Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana4
, Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
1 [1952] 2 All ER 567
2 1972 1 WLR 887
3 (2003) 7 SCC 375
4 (1995) 3 SCC 757
14
Sharma5
and in ABCD v. Union of India6
 were relied upon in support of the
contention.
12. While considering whether the conduct of Perry was fraudulent or not, this
Court had considered various decisions in paragraph 37 of its Order dated
7.10.2021 whereafter it was observed that it would be the duty of this Court to
nullify the effect and impact of the orders which were obtained after practising
fraud upon the Court. This Court, therefore, recalled the Judgment dated
28.10.2020 and the Order dated 08.12.2020. At the same time, non-disclosure of
material facts by Perry at the relevant junctures were also prima facie found to be
contumacious. Therefore, the instant proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction were
initiated suo moto by this Court.
13. The first set of decisions relied upon by Ms. Mathur deal with the rights of a
contemnor or a violator to be heard until such contemnor or violator purges the
contempt. Though Ms. Mathur was quite right in her submission, we had adjourned
the matter suitably on few occasions so that adequate opportunity could be availed
of by Perry and submissions on his behalf could be advanced. Even at the final
hearing stage, we had invited Mr. P. K. Manohar, learned Advocate for Perry to
advance his submissions which offer, however, was not availed of.
5 (1995) 1 SCC 421
6 (2020) 2 SCC 52
15
14. The second set of decisions relied upon by Ms. Mathur are on the point
whether tendering of affidavits and undertakings containing false statement would
amount to criminal contempt or not. At this stage, we may extract following
paragraphs from the decision of this Court in ABCD v. Union of India6 which had
considered some of the previous decisions of this Court on the point:
15. Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under
Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to
cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another
person is punishable under Section 182 IPC. These offences by virtue of
Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any court
only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said section. In
respect of matters coming under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code,
in Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan [Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L.
Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 526] prosecution was
directed to be launched after prima facie satisfaction was recorded by this
Court.
16. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra
Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma,
(1995) 1 SCC 421 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 239] that a person who makes an
attempt to deceive the court, interferes with the administration of justice
and can be held guilty of contempt of court. In that case a husband who
had filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking
transfer of matrimonial proceedings was found guilty of contempt of
court and sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment. It was observed as
under: (SCC pp. 423-24 & 427, paras 1-2 & 14)
“1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted
so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of
the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be
well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so
also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all
concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial
proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same
interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to
be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but
16
also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith
of people in the system of administration of justice.
***
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to
deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same
would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It
would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely
be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court;
the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of
contempt.”
17. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC
481] it was observed: (SCC p. 493, para 39)
“39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs. [R. v. General Commissioners for Purposes of Income Tax Acts
For District of Kensington, ex p Princess Edmond De Polignac, (1917) 1
KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant
who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a
writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of
material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and
prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material
facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads
the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to
prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court
does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in
its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt
of court for abusing the process of the court.”
18. In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana [Dhananjay
Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 608]
filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt
jurisdiction and the persons concerned were punished.”
Thereafter, in suo moto exercise of power, proceedings in contempt
jurisdiction were initiated against said petitioner.
17
15. It is thus well settled that a person who makes a false statement before the
Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration
of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. The extracted portion above clearly
shows that in such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power but it
would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt
jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court.
16. The essential features of the matter as culled out in paragraph 34 of the
Order dated 07.10.2021 were relied upon to arrive at a prima facie observation that
Perry was guilty of contempt of Court. Though notice was issued to Perry, no
response has been tendered. We find that the material on record clearly shows
violation on part of Perry. The observations made in paragraph 34 of the order
dated 7.10.2021 were on the basis of record. Having considered the entirety of the
matter, in our view, Perry is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court
apart from the contempt for violating express undertakings given to the Courts,
including this Court. We accordingly hold Perry guilty under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
17. Though the instant proceedings can be taken to logical conclusion and order
of sentence can be awarded even in the absence of Perry, we give final opportunity
to Perry to present himself before this Court on 22.07.2022 at 3.00 pm along with
18
Aditya. He shall then have an opportunity to advance appropriate submissions on
the issue of punishment to be awarded to him. It shall also be open to Perry to
purge himself of contempt in which case a sympathetic view may be taken in the
matter.
Let copy of this Order be served upon Perry through email ID used by him
in serving process upon Smriti. Additionally, a copy shall be given to Mr. P.K.
Manohar, learned Advocate.
18. For securing the presence of Perry and Aditya before this Court and for
effective implementation of the Orders issued by this Court, the Union agencies
including the Central Bureau of Investigation shall have and shall exercise all the
powers, not necessarily restricted to the following directions issued in the Order
dated 07.10.2021:
 “The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi through its
Director is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings by registering
criminal proceedings against Perry and to secure and entrust the custody
of Aditya to Smriti.
 The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India,
New Delhi and the Indian Embassy in Kenya are directed to ensure that
all possible assistance and logistical support is extended to Smriti in
securing the custody of Aditya.”
It must be stated here that the learned Solicitor General had assured this
Court during the hearings at the interim stages that every possible help and
19
assistance shall be extended by the Union agencies and the Indian Embassy in
Kenya in securing the presence of Perry and Aditya before this Court.
19. List the matter on 22.07.2022 at 3.00 pm.
….……………………………..J.
[Uday Umesh Lalit]
….……………………………..J.
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]
New Delhi;
July 11, 2022.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर