Pumping for apparently misplaced political propaganda has no place in our courts; this unhealthy practice needs to be strongly deprecated.
— Madan B. Lokur, J.
Supreme Court: A bench comprising of Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, JJ. while closing the contempt proceedings against Manoj Tiwari, Member of Parliament from North-East Delhi, passed strictures against the MP for machismo and the brazen manner in which he took the law into his own hands and tempered with the sealing put by the Veterinary Services Department of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation on the subject premises.
It is pertinent to note that on 14 September 2018, an illegal dairy in Shahadra, Delhi was sealed on the directions of the Director (Veterinary Services). On 16 September, the seal was broken/tempered with by the said MP. The explanation as given before the Court for his actions was that he is a popular leader and on seeing him, a mob of about 1500 people gathered around him and under the pressure exerted, he broke/tempered with the seal. The said rationale “shocked” the Court. It was observed that the consequence of such behaviour can be devastating in a given situation.
Furthermore, immediately after the hearing of the matter on 3 October, the said MP alleged that the Monitoring Committee (which was appointed by the Supreme Court vide M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 399 is running a sealing racket in connivance with corrupt officers. On perusal of the record, the Court noted that the sealing and de-sealing of the subject premises was an independent act of the Veterinary Services Department and had nothing to do with the Monitoring Committee. The Court, in strictest terms, in its judgment said the following:
“The misplaced bravado of Shri Manoj Tiwari and his chest thumping immediately after the hearing on 3rd October, 2018 and making serious but frivolous allegations against the Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court is a clear indication of how low Shri Manoj Tiwari can stoop and displays his total lack of respect for any rule of law. It seems that he is, in a sense, a rebel without a cause.”
Finally, after making such and other remarks, the Court left it to the better judgment of the Bhartiya Janata Party (to which the said MP belongs) to take any action against him, if so adviced. The Court hoped that better sense prevails and undemocratic tendencies are curbed by the political parties concerned. Reiterating once again that shoulders of the Supreme Court are broad enough to take criticism in its stride, the Court closed the contempt proceedings against Manoj Tiwari. [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Sealing Issue),2018 SCC OnLine SC 2524, dated 22-11-2018]
What would have been the Honorable Court’s order, if a common man had done the same offence of breaking the seal, as in the above-discussed case ?