Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SUB-COMMITIEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY versus JUSTICE V. RAMASWAMY

Decided
20 October 1994
Judges listed
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, A.M. AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 639 · 1994 INSC 475

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability', a group of members of the leg<i! profession, bas brought this petition for suo motu initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent. The matter is stated to arise out of a letter dated 21st January, 1992 which the respondent wrote to the Enquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in certain proceedings for removal of the respondent initiated by the Parliament. In this letter the respondent is said to have made certain sweeping allegations against certain Judges and the Judiciary. A copy of that letter is Annexure 'A' to the petition.

p. 640, margin C

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have sought the assistance of Sri Dipankar Gupta, learned Solicitor General. We place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by the learned counsel on both sides.

p. 640, margin E

Thete is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2164 of 1992 filed by Sri K.K. Jba, 'Kamal', Advocate, Patna High Court, for intervention. In our opinion, this application for intervention is misconceived and is dismissed.

p. 640, margin F

Though the letter, read by itself, raises certain apprehensions about its propriety, however, the respondent himself by bis subsequent letter dated 28.3.1992, which bas since been brought on record, has explained the context in which it was written and the apprehensions about the generality of its sweep stand mitigated. However, we feel that a lot of misunderstanding could have been avoided if the letter Annexure 'A' had not been written. We are unhappy that it came to be written.

p. 640, margin F

641

p. 641

But, on a careful consideration of the matter we, while expressing . our unhappiness about the episode, however think we should decline in the larger interest to suo motu institute any proceedings for contempt against the respondent. The petition is dismissed accordingly. A.G. Petition dismissed.

p. 641, margin A