Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Dr. Kamini Lau vs High Court Of Delhi on 23 February, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud

     SLP(C)No.452/18 etc.etc.                            1

     ITEM NO.26                          COURT NO.1                 SECTION XIV

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).452/2018

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2017
     in CM No. 33473/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
     Delhi)

     DR. KAMINI LAU                                                     Petitioner(s)

                                                VERSUS

     HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.                                         Respondent(s)

     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.2854/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.4745/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE
     ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS [TO BE HEARD BY HON. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
     HON. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. AND TO BE TAKEN UP AT 10.30 A.M.])
     WITH
     SLP(C) No.478/2018 (XIV)
     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.3064/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.4737/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE
     ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
     SLP(C) No.428/2018 (XIV)
     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.2835/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.4757/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE
     ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)
     SLP(C) No.409/2018 (XIV)
     (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.2799/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
     C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.4749/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE
     ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS)

     Date : 23-02-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

     For Petitioner(s)             Mr.Kapil Sibbal, Sr.Adv.
                                   Mr.Manoj Sharma, Adv.
                                   Mr.Kapil Kaushik, Adv.
                                   Mr.Adit S.Pujari, Adv.
                                   Dr.(Ms) Kamini Lau, petitioner-in-person
Signature Not Verified
                                   Mr. Roopansh Purohit, AOR
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2018.02.23

                                   Mr.Kapil Sibbal, Sr.Adv.
15:26:28 TLT
Reason:


                                   Mr. Vishnu Sharma, AOR
                                   Ms.Anupama Sharma, Adv.
                                   Ms.Sonali Negi, Adv.
SLP(C)No.452/18 etc.etc.                  2

                       Ms.Goutami Budhapriya, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

            UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

When this matter was listed before us on 15.01.2018, the following order was passed:

“Let this matter be listed on 22.1.2018.

In the meantime, the petitioner shall file an affidavit, clearly apologizing unconditionally, before the learned Division Bench of the High Court, which has passed the impugned order. Apart from an unconditional apology, the affidavit shall also contain withdrawal of the averments made in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the application (C.M. No. 33473/2016 in RFA No. 76/2016) for modification of order dated 5.5.2016 filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.

We are sure, if such an affidavit is filed,the learned Division Bench would be gracious enough to accept the same.

As we are directing the petitioner to take such a step, further proceedings in contempt or any other proceedings shall not be pursued against her till then.

Call on the date fixed.” Thereafter, the matter was listed on some occasions. As the Bench was not available in the High Court, this Court requested the learned Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute the said Bench. An unconditional apology, as suggested by this Court, has been filed before the said Division Bench of the High Court, which on 09.02.2018, after adverting to its earlier orders and the order passed by us on 15.01.2018, has passed the following order:

“5. The Judicial Officer has filed affidavit by way of unconditional apology. The Supreme Court has observed that we would be gracious enough to accept the same. We are accordingly accepting the affidavit filed by the judicial officer tendering unconditional apology.

6. Accordingly, we discharge Dr.Kamini Lau, ADJ, noticee of the criminal contempt from the criminal contempt proceedings and the criminal contempt proceedings directed to be issued in terms of the judgment dated 22.12.2017 are disposed of and notice to the Judicial Officer would stand discharged.

7. We would like to at this stage put our sentiments on record that it gave this Court no pleasure in issuing the contempt notice to the Judicial Officer, and especially because of what has already been observed by this Court in para 21 of the judgment dated 22.12.2017 where we had endeavoured to prevail upon the judicial officer for not pressing her applications but instead filing a representation in the administrative side of the High Court, and for which purpose the matters were adjourned on two occasions. Today, the Judicial Officer appears in person and states that she is contrite and would ensure that in future she would not cause any such situation and that present situation was only on account of totally unintended human error.

8. Accordingly, we dispose of the criminal contempt notice issued to Dr.Kamini lau, ADJ in terms of the judgment dated 22.12.2017.” We must say, the magnanimity shown by the High Court has to be appreciated and we do so.

At this juncture, a submission has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order dated 22.12.2017, certain directions have also been issued. They are as follows:

“29. In addition to issuing notice of criminal contempt of court against the applicant/judicial officer, we direct that let a copy of the present judgment along with the copy of the application filed in each of the four RFAs be placed before the ACR Committees of the concerned Judge for the years 2015 and 2016, so that the ACR Committees can take note of the conduct of the applicant/judicial officer of making unacceptable and unfounded statements in her applications.

30. We are also of the opinion that independent of the issue of applicant/judicial officer being guilty of criminal contempt of court, the averments made in the four applications filed by the applicant/judicial officer are such that necessary administrative action be taken against the applicant/judicial officer in terms of the rules applicable, and an administrative enquiry be initiated in accordance with law as to why departmental action be not taken against the applicant/judicial officer including for the uncalled for and unfounded allegations made by the applicant/judicial officer in her CM No.33469/2016 in RFA 851/2015, CM No.33472/2016 in RFA No.69/2016, CM No.33473/2016 in RFA No.76/2016 and CM No.33475/2016 in RFA No.304/2016 or that such misconceived applications ought not to have been filed. Copy of this judgment be accordingly placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for information and necessary action.” As the High Court has discharged the petitioner of criminal contempt on tendering unconditional apology, since the petitioner has felt repentant and contrite, we are inclined to state that no action should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned order passed by the High Court, and that apart, as the matter stands closed, no adverse entry shall be made that pertains to the proceedings before the High Court in RFA Nos.851/2015, 69/2016, 76/2016 and 304/2016. We are inclined to pass the aforesaid directions as the petitioner is personally present in Court and has further expressed her regret and submitted that she will not do anything of the present nature in future.

The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

(Chetan Kumar )                                       (H.S.Parasher)
 Court Master                                      Assistant Registrar