Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

iii) Dr. Subramanian Swamy Versus Arun Shourie, 2014 (12) SCC 344 where a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was appointed as a Chairman under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952;

iv) P.C.Joshi and Anr. Versus The State of U.P., AIR 1961 Supreme Court 387 to contend that the complaint under sub-section (2) of Section 199 of the Code can be filed by the Public prosecutor in the absence of the signatures of the complainant.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra), was a case where a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when appointed as a Chairman of Inquiry Commission had faced scandalous remarks against the Commission, but it was held that provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would not apply.

In S.K.Sinha's case (supra), the question came to be pondered upon was as to whether the limitation to file the complaint would be counted from the date of taking cognizance or filing of the complaint. By applying the reasonable construction, in paras 26, 27 and 30, it was held that the High Court was not correct in quashing the proceedings on the ground of limitation. The aforementioned paras read thus:-

I am afraid that the aforementioned argument would not come to the rescue at this stage of filing of the complaint, but there would have been a force had the complaint been filed before 31.08.2018, i.e., before the date the incidents had taken place as complainant was aware that his tenure as Chairman after two extensions was to expire on 31.08.2018.

The expression "Commission or any member thereof having disrepute would be extended and relate to an Ex-member. Had, the Legislature intended to grant such protection, i.e., liberty to avail the remedy as provided under Section 10-A, there would have been a specific provision. The plain and simple reading of the aforementioned provisions, leaves no manner of doubt that the provisions of Section 10-A can only be invoked by the Chairman or any other member during tenure and not 35 of 37 CRM-CLT-OJ-No.1 of 2019 (O&M) { 36 } thereafter as the remedy lies elsewhere. The doctrine akin to rule of interpretation is no longer res integra and equally so, time and again it has been held that when the language of the provisions and the intent of the Legislature do not require any interpretation than the one prescribed, the court cannot re-write the law as it would defeat the purpose of incorporating the provision while enacting an act. In the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of laying down the law that even if the sitting Judge of the Supreme Court having been appointed as a Chairman of the Commission shall be powerless to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 when faced with the scandalous remarks against the Commission.