NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday, while refusing to entertain a petition, directed a whistleblower to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court with his plea seeking to be heard in suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against a BJP MLA accused of contacting a High Court judge.
The petitioner, Ashutosh Dixit, a whistleblower, contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had earlier initiated contempt proceedings on his writ but did not allow him to be heard.
“It was on my petition that cognisance was taken… I am only requesting that let me be heard,” he pleaded before the top court. He further alleged inaction despite various representations, and sought a wider investigation into an alleged illegal mining scam worth “thousand crores of rupees”.
On hearing Dixit’s submissions, the court recorded all his contentions and refused to pass any direction.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, allowed Dixit to withdraw his plea and granted him liberty to move the High Court to assist in the contempt proceedings.
The matter arose out of a writ petition filed by Dixit before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, alleging illegal and excessive mining by three companies associated with sitting BJP MLA Sanjay Satyendra Pathak.
During the pendency of the petition, Justice Vishal Mishra of the High Court recused himself from hearing the plea, stating, “Mr Sanjay Pathak has made an attempt to call me to have discussion regarding this particular matter, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.”
The top court, while declining to entertain Dixit’s plea, reiterated that he should approach the High Court.
During the hearing, the court also made it clear that contempt proceedings are independent in nature, observing that the petitioner has no automatic right to participate. “Other reliefs are absolutely premature… first concentrate on proving that misconduct.”
Despite this, Dixit continued to press his request to be heard. The court, however, advised him to place his material before the High Court. “Your material, you should supply to the High Court… why do you want to come to the Supreme Court?” it said, while disposing of the petition.
The bench also warned him against expanding the issue, noting concerns about turning it into a broader or “political dispute”.