AG K.K. Venugopal Refuses Consent To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal has declined Adv. Vineet Jindal's request for consent to initiate proceedings for Criminal Contempt of Court against Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal. 

The request to initiate proceedings for Criminal Contempt of Court was filed after Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal, while expressing anguish at some judgments of the Supreme Court, said that he had "no hope left in the institution." The senior lawyer was speaking at the People's Tribunal which was organized on the 6th of August 2022 at New Delhi on the "Judicial Rollback of Civil Liberties". In his address, Sibal criticized the Supreme Court's judgment dismissing the plea of Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to state functionaries in Gujarat riots and also the verdict upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which gave vast powers to the Enforcement Directorate. He had appeared for the petitioners in both the cases.

While talking about the independence of judiciary, Sibal had stated that–

"A court where judges are instituted through a process of compromise; a court where there is no system to determine which case will be presided over by which bench, where the Chief Justice of India decides which matter will be dealt with by which bench and when, that court can never be independent...How can you keep trust in the Supreme Court when it upholds such laws?...If you think judges always decide in accordance with law, you are mistaken...if you think you will get relief from Supreme Court you are hugely mistaken."

These statements had resulted in the request for consent to initiate proceedings for Criminal Contempt of Court to be filed against him. 

The attorney general, while rejecting the request, stated that the statements pertaining to loss of faith in the Supreme Court were not contemptuous on the face of it, as the import of those statements was the fact that the orders of the Supreme Court were not implemented on the ground. He stated that–

"No part of the statements cast any blame or aspersion upon the court."

Additionally, the AG noted that the statement relating to the critiques of certain judgements delivered by the Supreme Court would fall squarely within the purview of 'fair comment' which is permissible under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He stated that–

"Further, in regard to the judgement upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the matter is currently sub judice as a review petition has been entertained by the Supreme Court which is pending...So far as the statement related to the allocation of cases is concerned, I find that the four judges of the Supreme Court in a press conference dated 12.01.2018, express the same views in relation to the allocation of cases by the then Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr Dipak Mishra. Under Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a judge can be held in contempt of his own court. However, no contempt action had ever been initiated by the Supreme Court against the makers of those statements, and therefore in my opinion it would not be appropriate that action be initiated against Mr Sibal."

The AG further stated that the statements made by Sr. Adv. Sibal were so that the Court "may take note of the statements in the larger interest of the justice delivery system". As per the AG, the statements were not intended to scandalise the court or affect the confidence of the public in the institution. Accordingly the consent was declined.