In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has issued a contempt notice to a magistrate and police officers in Gujarat for violating its order. This action follows the remand of a man to police custody, which contradicted an interim anticipatory bail order previously issued by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner’s lawyer highlighted that despite the Supreme Court’s interim anticipatory bail order dated December 8, his client was served a notice on December 12, instructing him to appear before the Magistrate in response to a police custody application. Subsequently, the Magistrate remanded the petitioner to police custody for four days, until December 16. During this period, the petitioner alleged that he was subjected to threats and physical abuse while in custody.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that despite being arrested on December 11 and subsequently released on anticipatory bail as per the Supreme Court’s directive, the Magistrate did not release the petitioner. Instead, the Magistrate insisted on the filing of a regular bail application. Following this, the petitioner filed another bail application, after which he was released upon executing another bond.
Expressing dismay at the blatant disregard for the Supreme Court’s order, Justice Mehta questioned,
“This is a gross contempt of the Court’s Order on the face of the record. How could he have been taken into custody? How could the Investigating Officer dare to seek the remand?”
Justice Gavai echoed this sentiment, stating,
“Let this be corrected in some manner. The I.O. and Magistrate must learn some lesson from this. We will issue the notice for contempt to the magistrate also. This is the manner in which they deal with the Supreme Court’s Order?”
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju offered an unconditional apology for the officers’ “blunder,” but the bench remained unswayed, labeling the incident as “gross.” Justice Mehta remarked,
“The very filing of the (remand) application was contempt on the face of it. Blatant illegal custody for four days!”
Also read-Decoding The Shiv Sena Split: Comprehensive Overview Before Maharashtra Speaker’s Crucial Verdict (lawchakra.in)
Justice Gavai suggested a reciprocal action, saying,
“Let the Magistrate and the IO be inside for four days.”
When the petitioner’s lawyer mentioned that the events at the police station were recorded on CCTV, Justice Gavai instructed him to obtain the footage. However, the State’s counsel reported that the CCTV was not operational. Justice Mehta deemed this as intentional, with Justice Gavai adding, “It shows the conduct. On the very same day it is not functioning!”
Justice Mehta expressed disbelief at the necessity of remand in a civil nature case, questioning the non-functionality of the CCTV in Surat, a major business hub. Justice Gavai highlighted that CCTVs are mandatory in all police stations as per Supreme Court directives.
Taking into account the submissions made by the petitioner, the Court issued a notice to the respondents, excluding respondent no.5, returnable on January 29, 2024. The bench stated that it would decide on that date whose personal presence would be required subsequently. Justice Gavai warned,
“File an affidavit. If we find, we will ask the DGP to take the Contemnors to the custody and send them to Sabarmati Prisons or some other…when we ask for their personal presence, ask them to come with their bag-baggage when they show their presence on 29.01.2024.”
The case, titled “TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH vs. KAMAL DAYANI,” with Diary No.- 1106 – 2024, represents a significant stance by the Supreme Court in upholding its authority and ensuring compliance with its orders.