New Delhi: Holding that corrupt members of
the subordinate judiciary should be "thrown out", the Supreme
Court on Tuesday came down heavily on a woman judge calling her a
"super Supreme Court" for defying its order.
"You can`t take the Supreme Court as a joke. People are
looking at judges with suspicion. Today, all sort of things
like 80 per cent of the subordinate judiciary are corrupt are
being said, which is very shameful", fumed a two-member bench
of the apex court comprising Justice Markanday Katju and
Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
The bench directed disciplinary action against Delhi`s
Additional District Judge Archana Sinha for defying
its order and stayed the eviction proceedings against the
tenant Udham Singh Jain Charitable Trust, Central Delhi,
despite the fact that the Supreme Court in an order on October
6, 2010, had dismissed the tenant`s plea.
"Archana Sinha had no business to defy our order and she
has become a super Supreme Court", the bench said.
The apex court said it was constrained to say that a
certain section of the subordinate judiciary in the country is
bringing the whole judiciary of India into disrepute by
passing orders on extraneous considerations.
"We do not wish to comment on the various allegations
which are often made to us about what certain members of the
subordinate judiciary are doing but we do want to say that
these kind of malpractices have to be totally weeded out.
"Such subordinate judiciary judges are bringing a bad
name to the whole institution and must be thrown out of the
judiciary," Jusice Katju, writing the judgement, said.
At one stage, the bench threatened to send the judge to
jail and suspend her but after Sinha profusely apologised
and pleaded for mercy, after which the apex court decided to
refer the matter to the Delhi High Court Chief Justice for
necessary action.
"We will send you to jail. We will suspend you," the
bench remarked orally. But later it relented and referred the
judge`s case to the Chief Justice of the high court.
The packed court also witnessed the spectacle of the
tenant vacating the disputed premises within one hour of the
deadline fixed by the apex court at 11.25 am and the warning
that if the tenant failed to vacate forthwith he would be sent
to jail.
The counsel, appearing for the tenant exactly after an
hour, told the court that the tenant has vacated.
The apex court had on October 6, 2010, dismissed the
tenant`s appeal against the high court direction asking the
trust to vacate the premises. The tenant gave an undertaking
that he would vacate the premises within six months by
April 6, 2011.
However, thereafter, the tenant filed a proxy petition
through another person claiming to be a sub-tenant and managed
to obtain a stay on the eviction proceedings from the court of
Archana Sinha on April 23.
Aggrieved, the landlord filed the contempt petition.
Reacting sharply to the defiance of its order, the apex
court said "it seems to us that in this country certain
members of the subordinate courts do not even care for orders
of this Court. When this Court passed an order dated 6th
October, 2010, granting six months` time to vacate, the
contemnor Archana Sinha, Additional District Judge, had no
business to pass the order dated 23rd April, 2011, but instead
she has stayed the warrants of possession, meaning thereby
that she has practically superseded our order and overruled
us."
The apex court said that in India often litigations
between the landlord and tenant often reach the Supreme Court.
"And when the tenant loses in this Court, then he starts
a second innings through someone claiming to be a co-tenant or
as a sub-tenant or in some other capacity and in the second
round of litigation the matter remains pending for
years and the landlord cannot get possession despite the order
of this Court.
"The time has come that this malpractice must now be
stopped effectively, the bench said.
The apex court also regretted that the counsel appearing
for the tenants also do not give proper advise to the clients
in such matters.
"After our order dated 06th October, 2010, the counsel of
the tenant should have advised the tenant to vacate the
premises in question like a gentleman before or on the expiry
of six months from 06.10.2010 but unfortunately they advised
the tenant to put up some other person claiming independent
right against the landlord as a sub-tenant and start a fresh
round of litigation to remain in possession.
In this manner, our order dated 6th October, 2010, was
totally frustrated," the bench remarked.
PTI
