The Gujarat High Court issued a contempt notice to a litigant who had repeatedly claimed that various constitutional courts, including the Supreme Court, “flagrantly disregard” judicial orders. This development arose during the hearing of a petition filed by Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, a party-in-person petitioner, who challenged an order of the Magistrate Court that declined to refer his complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and instead chose to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC. The petition concerned alleged violations of building height restrictions and alleged misuse of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) by certain builders constructing near the Surat airport. Mr. Bhamburkar alleged that these builders obtained NOCs from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) by submitting forged documents regarding site elevation and geographic coordinates, and thereafter carried out construction at locations allegedly different from the approved sites. He contended in his petition that the failure to register a First Information Report (FIR) in respect of such allegedly cognizable offences was a failure to comply with binding legal principles, particularly those he claimed were laid down by the Supreme Court, such as the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates the registration of an FIR where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence without requiring a preliminary inquiry. The petitioner claimed that internal police communications and the closure report in his case acknowledged cognizable offences, yet no FIR was registered and police failed to act according to law.
The High Court, presided over by Justice M. R. Mengdey, noted during proceedings that the petitioner had raised serious assertions about the judiciary’s functioning, including remarks that one constitutional court shows “proactiveness” to address public safety issues while another “flagrantly disregards the law.” When the court directly questioned the petitioner as to whether he intended to make allegations against the court, the petitioner reaffirmed that he was stating what he perceived to be facts emerging from the record. The High Court observed that this conduct appeared to be that of a “disgruntled litigant” who, after failing to secure favourable orders from judicial institutions, sought to defame them. The court held that the averments made in the petition and the remarks during the hearing were made “with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at large” and that such conduct amounted to contempt of not only the Gujarat High Court but also the Supreme Court and the trial court. Consequently, the High Court directed that a notice be issued to Mr. Bhamburkar, requiring him to explain why contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.
The High Court’s order also recounted the background of the petition. The petitioner had initially filed a public interest litigation in 2019 which remained pending, and later submitted an application to the police at Dumas Police Station in Surat on April 11, 2021. The application was treated as a noncognizable information and consequently directed to be filed as a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC. The petitioner also approached the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, under Section 154(3) of the CrPC, seeking registration of an FIR. However, when the Magistrate declined to take cognizance under Section 156(3) CrPC, choosing instead to examine the complainant under Section 200, Mr. Bhamburkar again approached the High Court. In response, the High Court observed that the affidavit filed by the AAI in the pending PIL did not aver that forged documents had been submitted for obtaining the NOCs, noting that the Magistrate was justified in finding that no cognizable offence was made out from the facts narrated by the petitioner. The order further explained the legal framework under Section 190(1)(c) of the CrPC, which empowers a magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon information received from any person other than the police officer or upon his own knowledge. The court clarified that if a magistrate did not exercise his power under Section 156(3) to direct an investigation, he could instead proceed on the basis of the application being treated as a complaint, and this course was available to him under law.
In its judgment, the High Court addressed the petitioner’s repeated suggestions that the Magistrate be sent for training because he was “unaware of law of the land” and not “up to date with the judgments,” including those more than thirteen years old. The High Court criticized the petitioner for assuming “advisory jurisdiction unto himself” over the court and for displaying a propensity to misread and misinterpret judicial directions of the Supreme Court. The court noted that some of the earlier applications filed by the petitioner, seeking similar prayers, had been dismissed by the High Court on September 19, 2022, and that such orders were affirmed by the Supreme Court on December 9, 2022. Consequently, the High Court described the present petition as a “successive attempt to reopen issues” that had already reached the Supreme Court, and termed it “frivolous, misconceived and abuse of process of law.”
The High Court further recorded that the petitioner had approached the High Court without availing the alternative remedy available to him before the Magistrate. The court stressed that the present petition was a classic example of a petition that was thoroughly misconceived and an abuse of the process of law. Public Prosecutor Hardik Dave and Assistant Public Prosecutor Himanshu Patel opposed the petition, submitting it was repetitive and successive, and that it contained unwarranted allegations against the concerned Judicial Magistrate. They noted that the petitioner had previously made identical prayers in applications which had been dismissed by the High Court on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy was available before the Magistrate. They also informed the court that the petitioner had filed a private complaint, in which the Magistrate had taken cognizance and the proceedings were then pending. Despite these submissions, the petitioner chose to lodge the present petition with the High Court rather than engage in the process underway before the Magistrate.
The High Court judgment also highlighted the petitioner’s claim that the police authorities failed to register an FIR despite clear disclosure of cognizable offences in a complaint dated January 14, 2020, sent to the Commissioner of Police, Surat. The petitioner alleged that documents on record showed lateral deviations of building structures ranging from 43 meters to 1,609 meters from approved specifications in multiple building complexes near the airport. He contended that the NOCs stipulated that any deviation in location would render the permission void. However, the High Court noted that the affidavit of the Airport Authority did not state that forged documents were submitted for obtaining the NOC, instead mentioning only that incorrect coordinates and site elevation had been provided and that construction had deviated from the data provided at the relevant time. The court reiterated that the Magistrate’s finding of no cognizable offence was justified. The High Court also underscored that the petitioner did not participate in the process before the Magistrate but instead approached the High Court with identical prayers that had previously been dismissed.
In the context of the contempt notice, the High Court emphasized that remarks appearing to disparage judicial institutions, including suggestions that courts disregard Supreme Court orders, go beyond legitimate legal argument and qualify as conduct that can lower the dignity of the institution of the judiciary. That conduct, according to the High Court, constituted contempt of court and necessitated issuing a notice to the petitioner to explain why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him. The High Court also directed the registry to revisit the competency certificate that allowed the petitioner to appear in person before the court, indicating that Mr. Bhamburkar’s conduct raised questions about his suitability to act as a party-in-person in litigation before the High Court. The High Court ordered the imposition of costs on the petitioner in connection with the proceedings.
In summary, the Gujarat High Court, while disposing of the petition, took serious exception to the petitioner’s conduct in making remarks that appeared to disparage courts and lower their dignity, and concluded that such conduct could attract contempt proceedings. The court recounted the factual background of the petition concerning alleged irregularities in building approvals and the refusal of police and magistrate to register an FIR, and held that the petitioner’s repeated attempts to relitigate issues already adjudicated, coupled with attacks on judicial institutions, warranted issuing a notice for contempt.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.