The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara challenging a March 2019 verdict of a coordinate bench that had held him guilty of contempt. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that an order passed by a coordinate bench cannot be challenged through a writ petition.
Background
The legal dispute originates from a March 12, 2019, judgment where the Supreme Court found advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara guilty of contempt of court. The contempt proceedings were initiated during the hearing of a petition filed by an organization represented by Nedumpara. In its final order on punishment, the top court sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence following an unconditional apology. Furthermore, the court barred him from practicing before the Supreme Court for a period of one year, stipulating that the suspension of the jail term was contingent upon his undertaking never to “browbeat” judges of the Supreme Court or the Bombay High Court.
Nedumpara subsequently filed a writ petition seeking to challenge the merits of the 2019 contempt conviction.
Arguments on Maintainability
During the hearing, the bench pointedly questioned the legal basis of the petition. Chief Justice Surya Kant asked Nedumpara, who appeared in person:
“Under which provision of law can we entertain a writ petition challenging an order of the coordinate bench?”
Nedumpara argued that the court had a “duty to correct the wrong” inherent in the previous verdict. However, the bench remained firm on the procedural bar. When Nedumpara claimed he had filed a review petition but that the “record is missing from this court,” the Chief Justice took exception to the statement.
“Don’t make scandalous allegations that record is missing. Did you make any complaint to the CJI that the record is missing?” the CJI remarked.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The bench observed that the petitioner failed to provide a legal provision under which a writ petition could lie against a judgment delivered by a bench of equal strength of the same court. The court noted that once a petition is found to be non-maintainable, it serves as an “embargo” preventing the court from examining the merits of the case.
The court reiterated that the proper course of action against a judgment is typically a review petition or, subsequently, a curative petition, rather than a fresh writ petition.
Dismissing the plea, the bench recorded that the petitioner was unable to explain how the writ petition was maintainable under the law. Consequently, the 2019 contempt conviction and the associated conditions remain undisturbed.
