Contempt petition filed in Supreme Court against Chairperson of State Women’s Commission Smt. Rupali Chakankar and ors.

• Petitioner sought 4 different contempt actions against contemnors.
• Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, NCP Chief Sharad Pawar and 10 Ministers are made accused.
• Petitioner claims that the appointment of political person on a quasi-judicial authority of Women’s commission is against the binding directions of Supreme Court.

• The order passed by the Chairman of Commission directing police to arrest MLA Ganesh Naik was beyond her jurisdiction and in contempt of Supreme Court judgment in M.C. Abraham Vs State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649.
• The order passed against Union Minister Narayan Rane & MLA Nitesh Rane in his claim of a case related with murder of Disha Saliyan and Sushant Singh Rajput was against the Supreme Court judgment in Rhea Chakraborty Vs. State of Bihar 2020 SCC OnLine SC 654.
• As per law laid down by the Supreme Court Smt. Rupali Chakankar was disqualified to hear and pass any order in any case related with persons either in her party or against her party i.e. BJP.
• But she passed orders beyond her jurisdiction and misused the public machinery for serving her personal and ulterior purposes. Which is an offence under section 166, 109, 409, 218, 219, 220, 120(B), 34 and 52 of IPC.
• Smt. Rupali Chakankar, despite being on the post of quasi-judicial authority continued to work as Rashtrwadi’s Political Party leader and attended many rallies, dharna and addressed programs of Rashtrawadi Congress Party. She attended dharna against Nawab Malik’s arrest.
• Therefore, she is guilty of grosses misconduct as a public servant. She is guilty of repeated contempt.
• All the ministers including Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and party leaders, Party Chief Sharad Pawar, Party’s M.P. Supriya Sule who abated her and helped her in committing such crimes are also held to be responsible for the same punishment as of the main accused.
• Petitioner sought maximum punishment of six months imprisonment under section 2(b), (c) & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 to contemnors.
• Petitioner also sought direction to CBI to register F.I.R. and action against the accused ministers.
• Petition is filed by Adv. Ishwarlal S. Agarwal who is working President of Indian Bar Association.

The prayers in the Contempt Petition reads thus;

“(a) To hold that the appointment of Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rupali Chakankar on the post of Chairperson of Maharashtra State Commission for Women is illegal and null and void and in contempt of law laid down in Mineral Development Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, (1960) 2 SCR 609 and therefore all the contemnors including Respondent No. 2 Shri. Uddhav Thackeray, Chief Minister of Maharashtra are liable for action and punishment under section 2(b), 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;

(b) To hold that in view of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court either Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rupali Chakankar’s or other officers of any Tribunal or judicial or quasi-judicial authority is not having any jurisdictional power to direct arrest of any accused and their directions are in deliberate disregard and defiance of law laid down in M.C. Abraham –Vs- State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 694;

(c) To hold that Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rupali Chakankar is also guilty of deliberate contempt of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rhea Chakraborty Vs State of  Bihar and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 654, All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 606 and therefore she is liable to be prosecuted for second and separate charges under Section 2(b), 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;

(d) Issue show cause notice for contempt’s in ‘FORM-I’ by formulating appropriate charges against contemnors as ruled in The Editor for Blitz Publications 1979 ILR Bombay 25,Suo Motu v. Nandlal Thakkar, Advocate 2013 CRI. L. J. 3391;

(e) To hold that the subsequent conduct of Respondent No. 1 disqualifies her to continue on the post of chairperson of a Maharashtra State Commission for Women even for a moment;

(f) To formulate the guidelines for appointment of and code of conduct for person holding statutory and quasi-judicial posts;

(g) To hold that the Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rupali Chakankar misused her position, office, public property and machinery for unauthorized purposes and other respondents who are made co-accused in the memo of petition by their act of commission and omission conspired, abated and committed the offences which are offences punishable under section 166, 409, 52, 109, 120(B), 34 etc. of IPC and therefore C.B.I. needs to be directed to register a case by treating this petition as an F.I.R. in view of law laid down in Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 508, Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 516;

(h) Try and punish the contemnors under Section 2(b), 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India;

(i) To give direction to the Secretary of the office of Hon’ble Governor to place the proofs of unconstitutional, unlawful and criminal mindsets of the accused before Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra with request to take immediate steps for informing the same to Hon’ble president of India through the Central Home Ministry for taking constitutional measures to ensure that the people like contemnors shall not be allowed to continue to hold the constitutional posts when they are not having any respect for law and who are involved in promoting the lawlessness;

(j) to give directions to the State Govt and central Govt to provide appropriate protection to the petitioner, his advocates and witnesses and to take immediate action in case of any threats, pressure tactics or any attempt to hurt/injure the petitioner, his advocates and witnesses. And in case of loss of life of the petitioner, to treat this petition as a dying declaration of the petitioner for prosecution against the contemnors;

(k) Pass any other order in favor of the petitioners which is just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

You can download the copy of the petition here;