AG Refuses Consent For Contempt Action Against Info. Commissioner For Allegedly Lowering Supreme Court's Authority In His Order
Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani today declined a Supreme Court Lawyer's request for consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the Information Commissioner, CIC-Uday Mahurkar claiming that he lowered the authority of the Supreme Court of India in his Order. Essentially, the consent for contempt action was sought against IC Mahurkar pertaining to an...
Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani today declined a Supreme Court Lawyer's request for consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the Information Commissioner, CIC-Uday Mahurkar claiming that he lowered the authority of the Supreme Court of India in his Order.
Essentially, the consent for contempt action was sought against IC Mahurkar pertaining to an order dated 25-11-2022, wherein he had observed that the Supreme Court's Judgment in All India Imam Organisation and v.Union of India and ors. [May 1993] was passed in violation of the constitution and had set a wrong precedent.
It may be noted that All India Imam Organisation case (supra), the Supreme Court had directed the waqf board to give remuneration to imams in mosques managed by it.
Read more about the CIC's order here: Supreme Court's 1993 Order On Salaries To Imams Violated Constitution Of India, Set A Wrong Precedent: CIC
In his letter written to the Attorney General for India, Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record Aldanish Rein had categorically stated that the alleged contemnor (IC Mahurkar) had Scandalized and lowered the authority of the Supreme Court.
"The Alleged contemnor who is not even a Law Graduate to understand the nuances of Law has gone ahead and observed that the Judgment passed by two learned Judges of the supreme court was passed in violation of the constitution and has set a wrong precedent. The Alleged contemnor without any substantial material before him and only on the basis of his imagination went on to further justify its attempt of lowering the authority of the Supreme Court..."
Having perused his letter, the Attorney General, while refusing to grant the consent, observed thus:
"I have given my anxious consideration to the case and the nature of observations made in the order in question, which are not relevant for the disposal of the case. In my considered opinion, however, the case does not warrant cognizance of criminal contempt under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, especially in view of the fact that the order in question would be amenable to an appellate review. I think where appellate processes are open to the parties, a contempt process may not be always in order."