IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 14, 15 and 17-Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975-Rules 19 and 20-Appellant held guilty of criminal contempt of court for creating an impression in mind of the public that his institution had been approved by the High Court for imparting education for alternative medicine and find Rs. 2000/- -Appeal-Procedure to initiate contempt proceedings-Rule 19 provided that Court may issue rule nisi-Rule nisi was not drawn up-Neither any notice of contempt was issued to appellant nor any hearing took place-Impugned judgment and order could not be sustained-Appellant had filed an affidavit in Supreme Court undertaking not to mention name of High Court in any advertisement or publicity in connection with his institution-Contempt proceedings deserved to be dropped.
Held : The procedure to initiate contempt proceedings has been laid down in the Act. Section 14 lays down the procedure when the contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The case in hand is not covered by Section 14 of the Act. It is not a case of contempt in the face of the Court. That was also not the submission urged on behalf of Respondent No. 1. In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 of the Act, the procedure to take cognizance has been laid down in Section 15 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 15, inter alia, provides that every motion or reference made under the section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. The procedure to be followed after taking cognizance has been provided for in Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 provides that notice of every proceeding under Section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise. It also sets out the documents which are required to be accompanied with the notice. The Calcutta High Court, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 23 of the Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India has made rules to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a court subordinate to it under the Act being the Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975. Rule 19, inter alia, provides that the Court may issue rule nisi. It further provides that the rule nisi shall be drawn up, as far as may be, in the model form in Form No.1, Appendix 1. Rule 20, inter alia, provides that where a rule is issued by the Court on its own motion under Rule 15, the rule nisi shall be drawn up, as far as may be, in the model form in Form No.2, Appendix 1. Rule 29 provides that the respondent or the contemnor may file an affidavit showing cause and the petitioner may file a reply thereto within such time as may be directed by the Court. The court may, however, in a contempt proceeding take such evidence as may be considered necessary. Admittedly, rule nisi was not drawn up. In fact, it seems that neither any notice of contempt was issued to the appellant nor any hearing took place except what has been noticed hereinbefore. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. {See Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 4 SCC 409]}. The contempt proceedings should not be initiated lightly. Since, in the present case, in the face of the infirmities abovenoticed, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained. (Paras 9 to 11)

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-These two appeals have been filed under Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act ). In one of the appeals, the challenge is to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court whereby the appellant has been held guilty of criminal contempt of court and fine of Rs. 2,000/- has been imposed upon him. The main grievance that has been urged by learned counsel in support of the appeal is that the High Court before holding the appellant guilty and imposing fine neither issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In the second appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order of the High Court whereby the appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith though later on the same date, he was ordered to be released on bail. Both the appeals are offshoot of the same litigation pending in the High Court in respect whereof we may make a brief reference.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Application (WP No. 20305 (W) of 1997) in the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying that the State-respondents be directed to take appropriate action against the appellant and the institutions run by him and he be stopped from deceiving public by issue of publications and advertisements in different newspapers making false claims giving an impression that only his institution on alternative medicines was recognized by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and approved by Medical Council of India as also by the High Court of Calcutta. It was claimed that by such false representations, the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) had been duped; made payment of the requisite fee and took admission in the Medical College of Alternative Medicines run by the appellant. In another Writ Application (WP No. 1437/97) filed by one Mr. Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy, allegations had been made against one Dr. S.K. Agarwal and his institution on alternative medicines viz. Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and Open International University for Alternative Medicines. In the said writ petition neither the appellant or his institution nor respondent No.1 were parties.

3. The writ application of Respondent No.1 was disposed of by learned Single Judge of the High Court in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal (MAT No. 462 of 1998) filed by respondent No.1. One of the grounds urged in the appeal was that the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997 was different from the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 20305 (W) of 1997 and the learned Single Judge committed serious illegality in not going into the merits and merely disposing of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1437 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, the learned Division Bench held that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge to disposed of the Writ Petition No. 20305(W) of 1997 on merits. The Bench further held that instead of remanding the matter, Writ Petition No. 20305(W) of 1997 can be disposed of by restraining the appellant herein and his institutions from using the name of the court or giving reference to any case decided by the Calcutta High Court either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that High Court has approved the said institutions or recognized those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of alternative medicine.

4. The issue in these appeals is not about the correctness of the judgment of the High Court in disposing of the appeal and the writ petition of Respondent No.1 in the aforesaid manner. However, by the same judgment and order, the Division Bench held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed fine on him, as earlier noticed. We are concerned only with the part of the order that deals with the contempt aspect.

5. The impugned judgment and order of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 415

IMPORTANT POINTContempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice.