1. Contempt petition under Article 129 of the Constitution and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging non-compliance with directions to hand over temple properties and funds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 821
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya – Petitioner
Versus
Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 853-855 of 2015 In Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3278 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
Contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Breach of Court Order
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Contempt of Court – Judgment shows that there is no discussion therein about liability of respondents to pay any specific amount – There is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by respondents to petitioner – Observations in report of Additional Director General of CID, Assam, cannot be treated as concluded findings – No case made out to take action under Article 129 of Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection – This is not a fit case to exercise said jurisdiction by punishing respondents – However, it is always open for petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money as mentioned in report in accordance with law – Contempt Petitions disposed of with observations. (Paras 7 to 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against the respondents nos.1 to 5 for committing breaches of the directions contained in the Judgment of this Court dated 7th July 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.3276-3278 of 2013.
Findings of Court:
There is no specific direction in paragraph 73 to pay any amount. Prima facie observation about misappropriation is based on the view expressed in the report. What is observed in the said report is not conclusive.
Result : Contempt Petitions disposed of with observations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manoj C. Mishra, Avijit Roy, Shuvodeep Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manoj C. Mishra, Avijit Roy, Shuvodeep Roy, Ishaan Borthakur, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks recovery of misappropriated funds based on an inquiry report; respondents contend the original judgment lacked specific directions for monetary payment. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The court found no specific direction to pay money in the original judgment and noted that a prima facie inquiry report is not a conclusive finding of liability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Contempt jurisdiction is discretionary, must be exercised sparingly, and cannot be invoked without a specific, adjudicated direction or conclusive finding of liability. (Para 9 )
5. Contempt petitions disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal proceedings for the recovery of money. (Para 10 )
6. When can contempt be initiated for the non-payment of money?
Contempt action requires a specific direction to pay a particular amount or a conclusive finding of liability. A general direction to hand over properties or a prima facie inquiry report is insufficient to establish a breach of court directions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Does failure to object to an inquiry report constitute an admission of liability for contempt purposes?
No. If parties were not granted an opportunity to file objections to a report, their silence cannot be treated as an acceptance of liability or a concluded finding of fact. (Para 9 )
8. What is the nature of the court's power to punish for contempt?
The power to punish for contempt is discretionary and must be exercised with the greatest care, caution, and circumspection, and should be used sparingly. (Para 6 , 9 )
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against the respondents nos.1 to 5 for committing breaches of the directions contained in the Judgment of this Court dated 7th July 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.3276-3278 of 2013, Riju Prasad Sarma and Others v. State of Assam and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 461.
2. The issue involved in the said Judgment is in respect of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Devalaya. The case made out in the contempt petitions is that the petitioner is the elected Dolois representing members of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya. It is the case of the petitioner that the right of Bordeuri Samaj to manage religious affairs of Kamakhya Temple has been recognised from time immemorial. Bordeuri Samaj consists of members of five families and Dolois (head priest) is elected from amongst the members of the five families. It is pointed out that in the year 1998, a self-styled body in the name and style of Kamakhya Debutter Board (‘Debutter Board’) was formed by the respondent nos.1 to 4 and that they have illegally usurped the power that has been historically vested in the office of Dolois.
3. The breach alleged in these contempt petitions is of the direction contained in paragraph 73 of the aforesaid Judgment of this Court dated 7 th July 2015, which reads thus:-
“73. Since the Debutter Board is occupying some part of the premises in the Temple of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple on account of interim orders of this Court, all those interim orders are now vacated. The District Administration is directed to ensure that those premises are vacated by the members or representatives of the Debutter Board at the earliest and in any case within four weeks. The premises and other properties of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple shall, if required, be placed back within the same time in possession of the Bordeories Samaj through the last elected Dolois against receipts which shall be retained in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Gauhati. The parties representing the Debutter Board are also directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises concerned and other properties of the Temple, if any, within four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs”.
(underline supplied)
The first grievance in the contempt petitions is that the possession of the immovable properties being 2 buildings mentioned in paragraph 2(t) of the contempt petition has not been handed over to Bordeuri Samaj by the respondent nos.1 to 5. The second grievance is that various movable properties of the Temple, as detailed in the representation dated 3rd August 2015, have not been handed over to the petitioner. The third grievance is that though as per the statement of accounts submitted on behalf of Debutter Board, it was holding surplus cash amount of not less than Rupees eleven crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid. Lastly, a grievance is made that books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the petitioner.
4. Initially, notice of these petitions was issued only to the respondent no.5 -Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, notice was also issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 as well. In the order dated 18th April 2016 passed in these contempt petitions, this Court recorded undertaking of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that they will furnish whatever remaining details relating to their bank accounts and the funds available in their accounts. The undertaking was recorded without prejudice to the stand of the said respondents that certain accounts are not connected with Kamakhya Devalaya. Further order dated 4th July 2016 passed by this Court records that the respondent no.5 stated that an inquiry is being held to find out all the details. This Court directed the respondent nos.1 to 4 to file copies of the consolidated accounts, if not filed earlier, as well as copies of the entries
