2009 Supreme(SC) 618

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - Petitioner
Versus
L.K. Tripathi and others - Respondents
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.262 OF 2007
IN S.L.P. (C) NO.18879 OF 2007
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.327 OF 2007
IN S.L.P. (C) NO.18879 OF 2007
Decided on : April 01, 2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Civil and criminal contempt distinguished.
Willfull disobedience of any judgment or violation of undertaking given to the Court constitutes civil contempt.
In order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances.
When shops and establishments remained closed even after recall of resolution for bundh the political party cannot be held guilty of contempt if allegations of violence and coercion by members of political parties are not substantiated.

Headnote:(a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – Willfull disobedience of any judgment or violation of undertaking given to the Court – Constitutes civil contempt. (Para 22)

       (b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – Willfull – Not defined in the Act – Means an act or omission done voluntarily and intentionally with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – In order to constitute contempt the order of the court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in normal circumstances – It should not require any extraordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or omission of a third party for its compliance. (Para 24)

       (2003) 11 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – Prohibitive injunction issued by Court explicitly directed against the political parties – Not against respondent nos. 1 to 3 – Respondent nos. 1 to 3 not directed to act in any particular manner or take certain specific steps to meet the challenge likely to be posed by implementation of the call given by Democratic Progressive Alliance – Respondent nos.1 to 3 cannot, per se, be held guilty of disobeying or violating the Court’s order – Cannot be punished for committing contempt of court. (Para 27)

       (2003) 11 SCC 1; (1995) 3 SCC 507; (1995) 3 SCC 507 – Relied upon

       (1994) 6 SCC 442; (1993) 3 All ER 537; (1970) 1 SCC 443; (1984) 3 SCC 549; 1962 (Supp) 3 SCR 127; (2006) 5 SCC 1; 1953 SCR 215; (1970) 2 SCC 325 – Referred

       (d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – After Court order political alliance recalling their resolution of bundh – Shops and establishments remaining closed even after recall of resolution for bundh – Alleged violence and coercion by members of political parties not substantiated – Respondent 4 cannot be held guilty of contempt. (Para 29)

       (e) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) r/w Article 129, Constitution of India – Petitioners submitting tape recorded version of speeches of respondent no. 6 – In the fact situation these do not constitute valid evidence – Respondent 6 cannot be held guilty of contempt. (Para 42)

       1985 (Supp) SCC 611; (1976) 2 SCC 17; (1965) 2 All ER 464; (1969) 3 All ER 1062; (2001) 3 SCC 739; (2001) 7 SCC 530; (2002) 4 SCC 21 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       In an apparent bid to pressurize the Central Government to expedite implementation of Sethu Samudram Project, Democratic Progressive Alliance comprising Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi, passed a resolution on 24.9.2007 to resort to total cessation of work and closure of shops on 1.10.2007 and to conduct a general meeting of the leaders of all parties on 30.9.2007 at Chennai.

       The petitioner challenged the afore-mentioned resolution in Writ Petition filed before Madras High Court and prayed that the call given by the political parties for organizing bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu either on 1.10.2007 or any other day may be declared as violative of Articles 19 and 21 and the Directive Principles of the State Policy and fundamental duties embodied and enumerated in the Constitution of India. Shri Subramania Swamy of Janta Party, Shri K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy and Shri R. Balasubramanian also filed Writ Petition Nos.31478, 31462 and 31631 of 2007 with similar prayers.

       Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed two miscellaneous petitions with the prayer that a direction be issued to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam represented by its President M. Karunanidhi (Respondent No.4 in the contempt petition) to deposit a sum of Rs.100 crore with the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu on or before 28.9.2007 which could be utilized to compensate the damage caused to the general public and the five political parties be restrained from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State in terms of resolution dated 24.9.2007.

       The High Court admitted the writ petitions and issued directions to the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, District Collectors and other officers of the State

       Feeling dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the petitioner filed S.L.P. (C) No.18879 of 2007. The Court passed a detailed order, including:

       “Until further orders, Respondent Nos.3 to 7 are restrained from proceeding with the call for Bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu on 1st October, 2007 pursuant to resolution dated 24th September, 2007 or any other day.”

       Respondents went ahead with their bundh call on 01.10.2007.

       On 3.10.2007, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the 1971 Act and prayed that the respondents be punished for violation and disobedience of the Court’s order dated 30.9.2007.

       Finding of the Court:

       Contempt is not made out against any of the respondents.

       Result:

       Contempt petitions dismissed.