Contempt Jurisdiction Is to Uphold Majesty of Law, Not Coerce Litigants; Order Imposing Costs Without Hearing Is Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana High Court - 2025-10-01

Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Contempt Order, Chides Bench for Breaching Judicial Propriety

Chandigarh: In a significant ruling on the scope and exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order that imposed a potential cost of ₹50,000 on state officials for non-compliance with a judgment. A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that contempt proceedings should be initiated sparingly to uphold the majesty of law, not as a tool for coercion, especially when an appeal against the original order is pending.

The Court sternly reminded the Contempt Bench of the need for "propriety" and "constitutional decorum," noting that repeatedly passing such arbitrary orders despite previous appellate corrections "deeply disturbs the judicial conscience."

---

Case Background: A Teacher's Decade-Long Wait for Dues

The matter originated from a plea by Ms. Daya Rani, a Craft Teacher who retired in 2014. After a decade-long legal battle, the High Court, via an order dated March 7, 2024, directed the state authorities to release her pensionary benefits along with interest. When the orders were not complied with, Ms. Rani filed a contempt petition (COCP No. 2913 of 2024).

On August 28, 2024, during the first hearing of the contempt plea, the Contempt Bench passed the impugned order, stating that if a compliance report was not filed within a specified time, the concerned officer would have to pay ₹50,000 as litigation costs from their own pocket. Aggrieved by this preemptive direction, the state officials, led by Dusmanta Kumar Bahera, filed the present appeal.

---

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Appellants' Submissions: The state officials, represented by Additional Advocate General Ankur Mittal, argued that the Contempt Bench had exceeded its jurisdiction. Their key contentions were:

- The imposition of costs on the very first day, without seeking an explanation for the delay, was arbitrary and tantamount to punishment.

- An appeal (LPA) against the original judgment was already pending, a fact the Contempt Bench should have considered before initiating coercive measures.

- The order was "inextricably connected" with punishment, making the appeal maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as per the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda .

Respondent's Submissions: Counsel for Ms. Daya Rani vehemently argued that the appeal was not maintainable. He contended that Section 19 of the Act only allows an appeal against a final order "imposing punishment for contempt," and the challenged order was merely a conditional direction, not a final punishment.

---

Court's Analysis: Interpreting "Jurisdiction to Punish"

The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of the law governing contempt appeals. It rejected the respondent's narrow interpretation of maintainability, holding that the statutory phrase "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" is not restricted to the final act of sentencing.

The Court observed:

"The meaning to be imparted to the statutory coinage (supra), is that, any order or decision recorded by the learned Single Bench of this Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, rather manifesting any proclivities towards ultimately punishing the alleged contemnor for contempt... makings the apposite appeal to be maintainable before the Appellate Court."

The Bench affirmed that the Contempt Bench's order, by imposing a hefty potential cost without due process, was "incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt," thus falling squarely within the recognized exception for appealability.

Reiteration of Established Legal Principles

Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd v. Sachidanand Dass and R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik , the Court reiterated foundational principles for contempt jurisdiction:

- Contempt action must be drawn sparingly and should not be used as an execution mechanism for which alternative remedies exist.

- When an appeal against an order is pending, the Contempt Court should await its outcome rather than coercing compliance.

- Courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the original order or decide issues on merits during contempt proceedings.

The Bench noted with dismay that the Contempt Bench had failed to adhere to the established procedure laid down in the Contempt of Court (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1974, which mandate giving the alleged contemnor an opportunity to file a reply affidavit before determining the charge.

---

Final Decision and Directions

Finding merit in the appeal, the High Court allowed it and quashed the Contempt Bench's order dated August 28, 2024, discharging the appellants. It also declared a subsequent order dated December 3, 2024 (where the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to revive) as having no legal consequence, terming it an intrusion into the appellate court's jurisdiction.

In a rare and strong directive, the Court ordered a copy of its judgment to be sent to the Contempt Bench for future adherence and to the Chief Justice for perusal, emphasizing that repeated breaches of judicial propriety erode public faith in the institution.