The Supreme Court ruled that Sahara boss Subrata Roy should stay in jail in a 207-page order, while noting in a post script to the judgment that Roy and Sahara had abused the judicial process and wasted “hundreds of judge hours”.

Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Jagdish Singh Khehar ruled dismissed Roy’s appeal today, reported the PTI, and in a long post script to the judgment called on the legislature to introduce rules to reduce frivolous litigation and punish such litigants with costs and compensation paid to the opponent.

SEBI was represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Pratap Venugopal, with Sahara fielding a roster of senior counsel, including Ram Jethmalani, S Ganesh, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Aryama Sundaram, Ravi Shankar Prasad and Rajeev Dhavan.

The judgment (PDF) is worth reading in full.

'Embarrassing': Excerpts of blistering put-down to 'arm twisting' by 5 seniors

2. When this matter came up for hearing for the first time on 12.3.2014, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought liberty to make a frank and candid submission. He told us, that it would be embarrassing for him, to canvass the submissions which he is bound to raise in the matter before us, i.e., before the Bench as it was presently structured. It was also his submission, that hearing this matter would also discomfort and embarrass us as well. He therefore suggested, that we should recuse ourselves from hearing the case, and require it to be heard by another composition, not including either of us.

3. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents, vociferously implored us not to withdraw ourselves from hearing the case. It was his vigorous and emphatic contention, that the present petition was not maintainable, either under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or under any other law of the land. Inviting the Court’s attention to the heading of the petition, it was submitted, that it did not disclose any legal provision, whereunder the present writ petition had been filed. He submitted, that as per its own showing (ascertainable from the title of the petition), the present writ petition had been filed, under the power recognized and exercised by this Court, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602. It was the assertion of learned counsel, that the above judgment, has now been clarified by this Court. According to learned counsel, it has now been settled, that the above judgment did not fashion or create any such power or jurisdiction, as is sought to be invoked by the petitioner.

4. Besides the above purely legal submission, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents equally candidly submitted, that the filing of this petition was a carefully engineered device, adopted by the petitioner as a stratagem, to seek our withdrawal from the matter. In order to emphasise that this Bench was being arm twisted, learned counsel invited our attention to the foot of the last page of the petition, i.e., to the authorship of the petition, just under the prayer clause. The text, to which our attention was drawn, is set out below:-

“Signed and approved by:-
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sr. Adv.”

According to learned counsel, this is the first petition he has seen in his entire professional career, which is settled by five Senior Counsel, all of them of recognized eminence.

7. Now the embarrassment part. Having gone through the pleadings of the writ petition we were satisfied, that nothing expressed therein could be assumed, as would humiliate or discomfort us by putting us to shame. To modify an earlier order passed by us, for a mistake we may have committed, which is apparent on the face of the record, is a jurisdiction we regularly exercise under Article 137 of the Constitution of India. Added to that, it is open to a party to file a curative petition as held by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388. These jurisdictions are regularly exercised by us, when made out, without any embarrassment. Correction of a wrong order, would never put anyone to shame. Recognition of a mistake, and its rectification, would certainly not put us to shame. In our considered view, embarrassment would arise when the order assailed is actuated by personal and/or extraneous considerations, and the pleadings record such an accusation. No such allegation was made in the present writ petition. And therefore, we were fully satisfied that the feeling entertained by the petitioner, that we would not pass an appropriate order, if the order impugned dated 4.3.2014 was found to be partly or fully unjustified, was totally misplaced.

8. It is therefore, that we informed learned Senior counsel, that we would hear the matter. It seems that our determination to hear the matter marked to us by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, was not palatable to some of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel, was now more forthright. He told us, that we should not hear the matter, because “his client” had apprehensions of prejudice. He would, however, not spell out the basis for such apprehension. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, came out all guns blazing, in support of his colleague, by posing a query: Has the Court made a mistake, serious enough, giving rise to a presumption of bias “... even if it is not there ...”? understand what he meant. It was difficult to But seriously, in the manner Dr. Rajeev Dhawan had addressed the Court, it sounded like an insinuation. Mr. Ram Jethmalani joined in to inform us, that the Bar (those sitting on the side he represented) was shell-shocked, that an order violating the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, had been passed, and it did not seem to cause any concern to us. The petitioner had been taken into judicial custody, we were told, without affording him any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel asked the Bench, to accept its mistake in ordering the arrest and detention of the petitioner, and acknowledge the “human error” committed by the Court, while passing the impugned order dated 4.3.2014. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, then informed the Court, that “... moments come in the profession, though rarely, when we tell the Judges of the Supreme Court, that you have committed a terrible terrible mistake, by passing an order which has violated the civil liberties of our client. ... that the order passed is void ...”. And moments later, referring to the order, he said, “... it is a draconian order ...” The seriousness of the submissions apart, none of them, even remotely, demonstrated “bias”.

9. But Mr. C.A. Sundaram, another Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, distanced himself from the above submissions. He informed the Court, “... I am not invoking the doctrine of bias, as has been alleged ...” We are of the view, that a genuine plea of bias alone, could have caused us to withdraw from the matter, and require it to be heard by some other Bench. Detailed submissions on the allegations constituting bias, were addressed well after proceedings had gone on for a few weeks, the same have been dealt with separately (under heading VIII, “Whether the impugned order dated 4.3.2014, is vitiated on account of bias?”). Based on the submissions advanced by learned counsel, we could not persuade ourselves in accepting the prayer for recusal.

10. We have recorded the above narration, lest we are accused of not correctly depicting the submissions, as they were canvassed before us. In our understanding, the oath of our office, required us to go ahead with the hearing. And not to be overawed by such submissions. In our view, not hearing the matter, would constitute an act in breach of our oath of office, which mandates us to perform the duties of our office, to the best of our ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. This is certainly not the first time, when solicitation for solicitation for recusal has been sought by learned counsel. [...]

11. In fact, the observations of the High Court of Delhi and those of this Court reflected, exactly how it felt, when learned counsel addressed the Court, at the commencement of the hearing. If it was learned counsel’s posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility. We could at any time, during the course of hearing, walk out and make way, for another Bench to decide the matter, if ever we felt that, that would be the righteous course to follow. Whether or not, it would be better for another Bench to hear this case, will emerge from the conclusions, we will draw, in the course of the present determination.

14. One of the reasons for retaining the instant petition for hearing with ourselves was, that we had heard eminent Senior Counsel engaged by the two companies exclusively for over three weeks during the summer vacation of 2012. We had been taken through thousands of pages of pleadings. We had the occasion to watch the demeanour and defences adopted by the two companies and the contemnors from time to time, from close quarters. Writing the judgment, had occupied the entire remaining period of the summer vacation of 2012, as also, about two months of further time. The judgment dated 31.8.2012 runs into 269 printed pages. Both of us had rendered separate judgments, concurring with one another, on each aspect of the matter. During the course of writing the judgment, we had the occasion to minutely examine numerous communications, exchanged between the rival parties. That too had resulted in a different kind of understanding, about the controversy. For any other Bench to understand the nuances of the controversy determined through our order dated 31.8.2012, would require prolonged hearing of the matter. Months of time, just in the same manner as we had taken while passing the order dated 31.8.2012, would have to be spent again. Possibly the submissions made by the learned counsel seeking our recusal, was consciously aimed at the above objective. Was this the reason for the theatrics, of some of the learned Senior Counsel? Difficult to say for sure. But deep within, don’t we all understand? It was also for the sake of saving precious time of this Court, that we decided to bear the brunt and the rhetoric, of some of the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner. We are therefore satisfied, that it would not be better, for another Bench to hear this case.

Judgment post-script in full:

146. Even though our instant observations are being recorded as a post script, after we have concluded examining the merits of the controversy arising out of the criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner - Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, the instant part of our judgment should be treated as a part and parcel of our decision, because it emerges out of years of our experience with the justice delivery system, and is prompted on account of the abuse of the judicial process, exposed while dealing with some Sahara Group related cases. The seriousness of the conclusions recorded herein, we hope, shall not be overlooked merely on account of the heading given to this part.  

147. The number of similar litigants, as the parties in this group of cases, is on the increase. They derive their strength from abuse of the legal process. Counsel are available, if the litigant is willing to pay their fee. Their percentage is slightly higher at the lower levels of the judicial hierarchy, and almost non-existent at the level of the Supreme Court. One wonders, what is it, that a Judge should be made of, to deal with such litigants, who have nothing to lose. What is the level of merit, grit and composure required, to stand up to the pressures of today’s litigants? What is it, that is needed to bear the affront, scorn and ridicule hurled at officers presiding over Courts? Surely one would need superhumans to handle the emerging pressures on the judicial system. The resultant duress is grueling. One would hope for support for officers presiding over Courts, from the legal fraternity, as also, from the superior judiciary upto the highest level. Then and only then, will it be possible to maintain equilibrium, essential to deal with complicated disputations, which arise for determination all the time, irrespective of the level and the stature, of the Court concerned. And also, to deal with such litigants.   

148. We have no doubt, that the two companies and the present petitioner before this Court – Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, are such litigants. They never subjected themselves to the authority and jurisdiction of the SEBI. They have continued with the same mannerism at all levels, right upto this Court. They have always adopted an accusing stance, before all the adjudicatory authorities. Even against us. Exhaustive details in this behalf have been expressed by us, in the order dated 31.8.2012. The pleas raised have been found to be patently false, on the face of the record.   

149. During the course of passing this judgment, we required the Registry of this Court to place before us a compilation of the orders passed on different dates of hearing, ever since the filing of the appeals, which culminated in passing of the order dated 31.8.2012. We were astounded to learn, that the controversy arising out of Civil Appeal nos. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 was listed for hearing on the following 81 dates:-

“28.11.2011, 9.1.2012, 20.1.2012, 10.2.2012, 2.3.2012, 20.3.2012, 23.3.2012, 27.3.2012, 28.3.2012, 29.3.2012, 3.4.2012, 10.4.2012, 11.4.2012, 12.4.2012, 17.4.2012, 18.4.2012, 19.4.2012, 20.4.2012, 24.4.2012, 25.4.2012, 26.4.2012, 1.5.2012, 2.5.2012, 3.5.2012, 4.5.2012, 30.5.2012, 31.5.2012, 1.6.2012, 5.6.2012, 6.6.2012, 7.6.2012, 12.6.2012, 13.6.2012, 14.6.2012, 31.8.2012, 11.9.2012, 28.9.2012, 19.10.2012, 19.11.2012, 8.1.2013, 6.2.2013, 8.2.2013, 19.2.2013, 25.2.2013, 4.4.2013, 22.4.2013, 2.5.2013, 8.5.2013, 17.7.2013, 24.7.2013, 30.7.2013, 6.8.2013, 13.8.2013, 26.8.2013, 2.9.2013, 16.9.2013, 4.10.2013, 28.10.2013, 31.10.2013, 1.11.2013, 20.11.2013, 21.11.2013, 11.12.2013, 17.12.2013, 2.1.2014, 9.1.2014, 28.1.2014, 11.2.2014, 20.2.2014, 26.2.2014, 4.3.2014, 7.3.2014, 12.3.2014, 13.3.2014, 26.3.2014, 27.3.2014, 3.4.2014, 9.4.2014, 16.4.2014, 17.4.2014 and 21.4.2014”  

A lot of these hearings consumed this Court’s full working day. Hearing of the main case, consumed one full part, of the entire summer vacation (of the Supreme Court) of the year 2012. For the various orders passed by us, including the order dated 31.8.2012 (running into 269 printed pages) and the present order (running into 205 printed pages), substantial Judge hours were consumed. In this country, judicial orders are prepared, beyond Court hours, or on non-working days. It is apparent, that not a hundred, but hundreds of Judge hours, came to be spent in the instant single Sahara Group litigation, just at the hands of the Supreme Court. This abuse of the judicial process, needs to be remedied. We are, therefore of the considered view, that the legislature needs to give a thought, to a very serious malady, which has made strong inroads into the Indian judicial system.

150. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims. One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for, what he has lost, for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is, that a litigant who has succeeded, must be compensated by the one, who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism, that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly, pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the introduction of a “Code of Compulsory Costs”. 

151. We should not be taken to have suggested, that the cost of litigation should be enhanced. It is not our suggestion, that Court fee or other litigation related costs, should be raised. Access to justice and related costs, should be as free and as low, as possible. What is sought to be redressed is a habituation, to press illegitimate claims. This practice and pattern is so rampant, that in most cases, disputes which ought to have been settled in no time at all, before the first Court of incidence, are prolonged endlessly, for years and years, and from Court to Court, upto the highest Court.   

152. This abuse of the judicial process is not limited to any particular class of litigants. The State and its agencies litigate endlessly upto the highest Court, just because of the lack of responsibility, to take decisions. So much so, that we have started to entertain the impression, that all administrative and executive decision making, are being left to Courts, just for that reason. In private litigation as well, the concerned litigant would continue to approach the higher Court, despite the fact that he had lost in every Court hitherto before. The effort is not to discourage a litigant, in whose perception, his cause is fair and legitimate. The effort is only to introduce consequences, if the litigant’s perception was incorrect, and if his cause is found to be, not fair and legitimate, he must pay for the same. In the present setting of the adjudicatory process, a litigant, no matter how irresponsible he is, suffers no consequences. Every litigant, therefore likes to take a chance, even when counsel’s advice is otherwise.  

153. Does the concerned litigant realize, that the litigant on the other side has had to defend himself, from Court to Court, and has had to incur expenses towards such defence? And there are some litigants who continue to pursue senseless and ill-considered claims, to somehow or the other, defeat the process of law. The present case, is a classic illustration of what we wish to express. Herein the regulating authority has had to suffer litigation from Court to Court, incurring public expense in its defence, against frivolous litigation. Every order was consistently and systematically disobeyed. Every order passed by the SEBI was assailed before the next higher authority, and then before this Court. Even though High Courts have no jurisdiction, in respect of issues regulated by the SEBI Act, some matters were taken to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (before its Lucknow Bench). Every such endeavour resulted in failure, and was also sometimes, accompanied with strictures. Even after the matter had concluded, after the controversy had attained finality, the judicial process is still being abused, for close to two years. A conscious effort on the part of the legislature in this behalf, would serve several purposes. besides everything else, reduce frivolous litigation. It would, When the litigating party understands, that it would have to compensate the party which succeeds, unnecessary litigation will be substantially reduced. At the end of the day, Court time lost is a direct loss to the nation. It is about time, that the legislature should evolve ways and means to curtail this unmindful activity. We are sure, that an eventual determination, one way or the other, would be in the best interest of this country, as also, its countrymen.

• Read full judgment (PDF)
• Sahara case background