The Supreme on Monday issued notice to the Kerala High Court on an SLP preferred by the state’s former vigilance director Jacob Thomas against the March 20 order of the high court initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against him, thereby staying the proceedings. This notice was issued by the bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan.
This matter relates to initiation of contempt proceedings against former vigilance director Jacob Thomas by the Kerala High Court for levelling allegations of corruption against two high court judges – Justice P Ubaid and Justice Abraham Mathew, who were allegedly victimising him by passing adverse judgments in several corruption cases he has been probing, including the Pattor land scam. The development follows a complaint made by Thomas on March 9 to Central Vigilance Commissioner in which he had made several allegations against the two judges and also the Lokayukta Pius C Kuriakose of demoralizing him from probing corruption cases involving highly influential persons of the state.
Advocate Mansoor BH, who is practicing before the Kerala High Court, then moved a contempt petition wherein he prayed for an inquiry into the allegations made by Thomas and how his complaint was made public.
Mansoor said he saw reports in all leading newspapers on March 10 about the complaint made by Thomas based on the complaint sent by him to the CVC through the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala.
In his petition he has said that “The conduct of the respondent (Thomas) in leaking out a copy of the Complaint filed by him before the Central Vigilance Commissioner to the members of the Fourth Estate is to be taken note of very seriously and a detailed enquiry in this regard is to be made.”
He further added “The act done by Jacob Thomas in leaking out a copy of the Complaint filed by him before the Central Vigilance Commissioner to the members of the Fourth Estate is to be taken note of very seriously and a detailed enquiry in this regard is to be made.”
The Registrar General placed the petition before the Chief Justice Antony Dominic. The Chief Justice found that the petition prima facie disclosed allegations which constituted criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act and felt necessary to take further action in accordance with law. Accordingly, suo moto action was initiated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It was observed that in filing a complaint before the CVC, which has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, and thereupon releasing the same in public domain amounts to scandalising and lowering the authority of the judiciary and obstructing the administration of justice.
The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court on Monday where Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing on behalf of Jacob Thomas, advanced, “With great respect to the High Court, there is no contempt (Dr. Thomas’s letter to the CVC) has nothing to do with the High Court it elaborates on his own grievance against the system the High Court cannot be overtly sensitive.”
Countering the same Senior counsel V Giri, appearing for the high court, replied, “The Chief Justice (of the High Court) has found a prima facie case of contempt besides, only a show cause notice has been issued to him what could be the problem in appearing before the division bench of the High Court to clarify what he meant or what he did not mean? if he does not wish to appear in person, he may even apply for an exception.”
The Supreme Court Bench while giving this order observed that “The petitioner’s main intention is to improve the system and not to hurt any judge,” reiterated the bench, initially seeking to direct the petitioner to file a clarificatory affidavit before the high court upon which the high court may close the matter.
The Supreme court at last remarked that the high court cannot be “so touchy”, and thus issued the said notice.
