Attorney General refuses consent to criminal contempt action against Central Information Commissioner

Advertisement

New Delhi, December 10

Attorney General R Venkataramani has refused to give his consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against Central Information Commissioner Uday Mahurkar for allegedly making scandalous remarks against the Supreme Court.

SC order amenable to review

The case doesn’t warrant cognisance of criminal contempt under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, especially in view of the fact that the order in question would be amenable to an appellate review. R Venkataramani, Attorney General

“I have given my anxious consideration to the case and the nature of observations made in the order in question, which are not relevant for the disposal of the case. In my considered opinion, however, the case does not warrant cognisance of criminal contempt under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, especially in view of the fact that the order in question would be amenable to an appellate review. I think where appellate processes are open to the parties, a contempt process may not always be in order,” the Attorney General said.

Accusing Mahurkar of attempting to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court by his order dated November 25, 2022, Advocate-on-Record Aldanish Rein had last month sought the Attorney General’s consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against Mahurkar.

In the order, Mahurkar had allegedly observed that the Supreme Court’s 1993 judgment in the All-India Imam Organisation & Ors versus Union Of India & Ors was passed in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. The order had said the top court’s verdict particularly violated Article 27, which says the taxpayers’ money will not be used to favour a particular religion.

In that judgment, the top court had ordered payment of emoluments to imams of mosques across India.

Mahurkar had reportedly made the comments while hearing a matter in which an RTI applicant had sought details on salaries and other benefits given to imams by the Delhi Government.

Noting that the 1993 Supreme Court order allowing remuneration to imams in mosques, was “violation of the Constitution” and a “wrong” precedent, Mahurkar had said it had become a point of unnecessary political slugfest and social disharmony.

Hearing an RTI application filed by an activist who asked for details of salaries to imams by the Delhi Government and the Delhi Waqf Board, Information Commissioner Uday Mahurkar also observed that the order violated constitutional provisions that said “tax payers’ money will not be used to favour any particular religion”.