Read Time: 07 minutes

Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal refused to give consent for initiating proceedings for criminal contempt against Chief of Bheem Army and leader of Azad samaj Party, Chandrashekhar Azad for his August 27 comments made on a news show, levelling allegations against the judges of the Supreme Court.

Though AG’s letter dated October 7, 2012 reads, “It is true that scurrilous allegations have been made against the judges of the Supreme Court,” however, AG declined his consent, observing that he did not believe that public would take such statements seriously as those were of a general nature.

The AG was considering a letter forwarded by Adv. Vineet Jindal, a Delhi-based lawyer urging AG to grant consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for proceeding with criminal contempt of court against Azad.

The AG observed that Azad’s allegations are of a general nature, completely lacking in material particulars and therefore he opined that though having been made with intent to be provocative, these statements will not substantially affect the administration of justice or lower the authority of the Supreme Court in the public mind.

Therefore, “I accordingly decline to grant consent under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," concludes AG's letter.

The letter seeking such consent was sent via email to AG on August 28, 2021. In his letter, Adv. Jindal had alleged that in an interview that was aired on ABP news channel on its programme called ‘ABP Shikhar Sammelan’ on 27th August 2021, Azad remarked upon the collegium system in a scandalous manner.

Jindal had stated that in the interview, which was in Hindi, Azad commented that the selection to the post of Judges is done solely on the basis of personal relations or family relations of the selected judges with the sitting judges.

Jindal had further alleged that Azad said that the selection process is totally biased and that it takes place in the interest of sitting judges and their family members.

Thereby, Jindal had contended that by stating the above, Azad had directly made allegations with intent to disgrace and scandalize the sitting judges of the highest Court of the country and had scandalized the judgments passed by the Supreme court judges by accusing them of being corrupt.

Jindal had argued, “If this kind of precedent were allowed, political leaders would start making reckless allegation against the judges of the highest Court of our country and this trend would soon lead to the failure of an independent judiciary system.”

Upon this, taking note of all the concerns raised by Jindal in his letter and after perusal of the interview show video, AG replied,

“It is true that scurrilous allegations have been made against the judges of the Supreme Court. The allegations are of a general nature, and completely lacking in material particulars. What is more, they appear to have been made with the intent to be provocative. But even so, I do not believe that any member of the public would take such statements seriously and am therefore of the opinion that these statements do not substantially affect the administration of justice or lower the authority of the Supreme Court in the public mind.”

Accordingly, AG declined to grant his consent.