oppn parties M Nageswar Rao Guilty of Contempt: Supreme Court Rightly Sets An Example

News Snippets

  • Government to introduce PF for self-emplyed and gig workers
  • Crush at Puri Rathyatra leaves 2 dead and 78 injured
  • NEET-UG, marred in controversy due to pape4r leak, saw a huge increase in top scores as two scored 715/720 and 11.2 lkah candidates cleared the exam
  • India's first hydrogen-powered train will be flagged off by PM Modi from Jind in Haryana
  • Delhi HC asks the government to monitor Sona Wnagchuk's health regularly
  • TMC Rajya Sabha MP Koel Mallick resigns from her seat, leaves TMC. Mamata asks all those wishing to leave the party to do so before July 21
  • Calcutta HC says land deed is not a proof of citizenship. Refuses to provide protection to a man facing deportation on basis of land deed
  • Supreme Court tells the government to teach the third language in the 3-language formula in Class 6 and not Class 9
  • Government to take steps to boost liquidity for small businesses
  • RBI says that banks cannot sell seized assets back to the defaulters
  • Centre decides to take equity stakes in semiconductor startups
  • Markets remain flat on Thursday: Sensex closes just 1 point ahead and Nifty ended 5 point lower
  • BCCI:Selectors have possibly decided that Rohit Sharma will not be selected for ODIs after the Lord's game on Sunday
  • Japan Open badminton: P V Sindhu stuns world no. 5 Han Yue of China 21-16, 21-14 to enter the quarterfinals
  • 2nd ODI versus England: Indian batting fails miserably except Gill, Kohli and Iyer to score just 233 all out. England win by 4 wickets
Supreme Court clarifies that it has not issued a blanket ban on use of bulldozers, and they can be used after compliance with procedure laid down in civil laws
oppn parties
M Nageswar Rao Guilty of Contempt: Supreme Court Rightly Sets An Example

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2019-02-15 20:59:22

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
The Supreme Court did well to refuse to accept the apology tendered by M Nageshwar Rao, ex-interim director of the CBI, for going against its earlier order and held him and S Bhasu Ram, Director of Prosecution in the agency, guilty of contempt of court. The court fined them Rs 1 lakh each and although it could have sent them to jail for three months, just made them sit in a corner of the court till the end of the day’s proceedings.

Rao had, in contravention of the apex courts’ earlier order, transferred A K Sharma, the officer who was working on the Bihar shelter homes rape case. Although he later tendered an apology where he stated that "I sincerely realise my mistake and while tendering my unqualified and unconditional apology, I specially state I have not wilfully violated the order of this court as I cannot even dream of violating or circumventing order of this court." That it was not enough to placate the court was clear in the way CJI Ranjan Gogoi thundered “you have played with our orders. God help you." Justice Gogoi later said that he had punished someone for contempt of court for the first time in his long career.

To be fair to Rao, the transfer of Sharma happened as part of the overnight mass transfers that the government ordered as a tactic to defuse the unsavoury situation arising after the public feud between the former CBI chief Alok Verma and his former deputy Rakesh Asthana. Nageswar Rao himself had just been elevated to the top post on a temporary basis. But being an old hand in the agency, before affecting the mass transfers he should have identified officers whose transfers were expressly prohibited by the courts. In not doing so, he ran himself foul of the apex court orders.

The court, on its part, was absolutely correct in not showing leniency by accepting the apology and letting things pass. The way institutions are being politicized and plaint officers are being made to carry out the executives’ bidding, if the courts are not strict when laws are broken or if orders are violated or circumvented, then there will be total chaos and the ruling dispensation will do much as it pleases with scant regard for the law. With this punishment (and the related black marks in the career records of the officers), a forceful signal will go down the bureaucracy that no one can play with court orders.