Justice Rohinton Nariman on Friday recused from a contempt petition in the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple Management case.
The Supreme Court had on July 7, 2015 upheld the 2011 Gauhati High Court decision to restore the administration of the temple to the Bordeuri Samaj, comprising five main families of priests who had run the temple since time immemorial until 1998- when the Kamakhya Debutter Board was formed and taken over control of the shrine. The contempt case, at the instance of the Bordeuri Samaj, arises out of the non-compliance with the Court's July 7, 2015 judgment.
"I am recusing myself from this matter. I was not aware that my father had appeared in the earlier proceedings", said Justice Nariman when the case came up before his bench, also comprising Justices K. M. Joseph and B. R. Gavai.
Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman had appeared on one occasion on November 21, 2011 for the appellant in the main proceedings, Riju Prasad Sarma who described himself as the Administrator, Kamakhya Debutter, and who is Respondent no. 1 in the instant contempt plea. "That may have nothing to do with the present proceedings...", began SG Tushar Mehta, for the state of Assam, on Friday.
However, Justice Nariman was not inclined to hear any submissions on this aspect, and assertively reiterated his decision to recuse.
On January 31, 2020, which was the last date of hearing of the contempt petition, a bench headed by Justice Nariman had taken noted that a sum of Rs.7,62,03,498/- has been withdrawn in cash by the Kamakhya Board from 2 accounts, one in UCO Bank and one in United Bank of India. "These withdrawals have taken place since 21.11.2011 in violation of the Supreme Court's order without taking approval from the Deputy Commissioner, being cleverly split into amounts of Rs.50,000/- so as to give an impression as if the order is complied with. These facts, prima facie, establish misappropriation of funds by the Board", the bench had observed. The bench had recorded that as per the report of the Additional DGP, CID, Assam, the office bearers did not cooperate with the enquiry officer and concealed vital information including existence of bank accounts in their names, and that "a proper investigation based on lodging of criminal case would facilitate discovery of financial trail, exact extent of misappropriation, identity of co-conspirators, retrieval of relevant documents, etc."
The bench had proceeded to direct that it would be in the fitness of things if the lodging of a criminal case be done immediately and a proper investigation is conducted within a period of three months. "A report be given to this Court on or before 14th May, 2020", the bench had ordered.
Talking to Live Law, Advocate Manish Goswami, for the contempt petitioner- Samaj, confirmed that Mr. Nariman had appeared once while the main SLP against the Gauhati High Court judgment was still in its preliminary stages. It may be noted that the hearing of November 21, 2011 was the second hearing in the matter when notice was issued on the SLP.
