Case Judgement Analysis: Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 107

Citation of the Case:

Title: Charan Lal Sahu vs Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 1988 AIR 107, 1988 SCR (1) 441

Date of Judgment: 9th October 1987

Facts of the Case:

1. The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition in the form of a public interest litigation.
2. In the petition, he made various allegations against the functioning of the judiciary, specifically the Judges of the apex Court.
3. The allegations in the petition included claims that the Court's working was based on Western Common Law and American techniques, that it had become a constitutional liability, and that it was not effectively controlling the illegal acts of the Government.

Issue Involved:

The primary issue was whether the petitioner's writ petition, which contained unsavoury language and allegations against the Court and other constitutional institutions, constituted contempt of court.

Argument of Both Parties:

Arguments by the Petitioner (Charan Lal Sahu):

1. The petitioner, who was an advocate, filed a writ petition in the form of a public interest litigation.
2. In his petition, he made several allegations against the judiciary, particularly the Judges of the apex Court.
3. The petitioner claimed that the working of the Judges was based on Western Common Law and American techniques, which he considered unproductive and outdated for the socio-economic conditions of the country.
4. He also alleged that the Court had become a constitutional liability, as it lacked control over the illegal acts of the Government.
5. The petitioner further accused the Court of "sleeping over the issues" like 'Kumbhkarna,' implying that it was not addressing critical matters.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India & Anr):

1. The Court, in response to the petitioner's allegations, issued a show cause notice for contempt of court.
2. The respondents, including the Union of India, did not need to provide extensive arguments in this context.
3. The Court, in its decision, essentially considered the content of the petitioner's writ petition as prima facie contemptuous and designed to denigrate the Court.

Decision of the Court:

1. The Court found that the petitioner's writ petition was intentionally designed to denigrate the Court and lower its prestige.
2. The Court was of the prima facie view that the petitioner was guilty of contempt of court.
3. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to draw up an appropriate proceeding for contempt and issue a show cause notice to the petitioner.
4. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against under the Contempt of Court Act.

Ratio of the Case:

The case establishes that intentionally making unsavoury allegations and attempting to denigrate the Court in a petition can constitute contempt of court.

It highlights the importance of self-restraint in public interest litigations.

Comment on the Decision:

The Court's decision to issue a show cause notice for contempt of court seems justified in the context of the petitioner's allegations, which were deemed intentional attempts to lower the prestige of the Court.

Analysis By: Harshavardhan Prakash Deshmukh (B.A.LL.B.)

Modern Law College, Pune, Maharashtra

Follow At https://www.instagram.com/dabangglawyer/