Supreme Court Stands Firm Against Contempt Convict’s Attempt to Derail Sentencing
Last Updated on September 11, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a notable display of judicial assertiveness the Supreme Court of India has chosen not to be submissive to a convicted contemnor’s ability to avoid sentencing, as certain allegations were made against a sitting judge. The case in point is Rajiv Dahiya, Chairman of Suraz India Trust, facing contempt conviction in 2021 for filing numerous frivolous petitions and wasting the court’s time.
A division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih posted the hearing on the sentence quantum for Dahiya for September 23. The proceedings took a very shocking turn when Dahiya said in an open court that he had written an application to the President for permission to prosecute Justice Oka. The Bench, however, was undaunted and held that such tactics cannot derail the announcement of the sentence quantum.
The case, thus, can be seen as serving as a reminder that the judiciary will do whatever is necessary to maintain its independence and productivity. This stern behaviour of the court underscores the fact that the court takes very seriously any attempt or act of contempt of court and misuse of the legal processes. In effect, Justice Oka also said, “By making allegations against judges by seeking prosecution against judges, we won’t get deterred, and that quote also reflects the resolve of the court.
The case against Dahiya began in 2017 when a three-judge bench imposed a cost of Rs 25 lakh for filing 64 malafide petitions before various forums: Suraz India Trust. Dahiya had been prohibited from filing any more cases. Other actions which led to the contempt proceedings included failure to pay the imposed cost and making allegations against the court staff and the judges.
Indeed, the handling of this case in Supreme Court demonstrates the new approaches that are being taken concerning the vexatious litigation and the holiness of the process of law. The court in sentencing, in the light of Dahiya games, makes a clear stand on her role leading to the abuse of the law and disrespect of judicial systems.
Until September 23 when the hearing is due, the Courts wait for its decision, but such a case makes one to think of the thin line that the legal fraternity has to tread between providing access to justice and an abuse of the process. In so doing, it has also highlighted the problem that many courts grapple with whenever they encounter litigants whose aim seems to be, by any means, to delay justice.
