SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
In Re: Vijay S. Kurle And Ors. - Petitioners
Miscellaneous Application No. 1073 of 2021 in MA 617 of 2021 in MA 2200 of 2020 in MA 1435 of 2020 in SMC(Crl) No. 2 of 2019
Decided On : 16-07-2021
Contempt - Extension of Time for Surrender - Intra-court Appeal for Conviction in Criminal Contempt Cases
Fact of the Case:
The contemnors were found guilty of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment and fine, with an extended surrender period due to the Covid-19 pandemic. They filed writ petitions seeking an intra-court appeal for conviction in criminal contempt cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to recall the original order and repeatedly extended the surrender deadline. The contemnors sought to withdraw prayers in the writ petitions except for the appeal issue. They also apologized for any allegations against the Amicus Curiae. The court directed the writ petitions to be listed with the pending appeal and granted a one-month extension for surrender with conditions.
Issues: The main issue was the contemnors' request for an intra-court appeal for conviction in criminal contempt cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the pending appeal for an intra-court appeal, the contemnors' withdrawal of prayers in the writ petitions, and their unconditional apology for any allegations against the Amicus Curiae.
Final Decision: The court granted a one-month extension for surrender with specified conditions and directed the writ petitions to be listed with the pending appeal.
ORDER :
1. In Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2019, three persons namely Vijay S. Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha were found guilty of contempt vide judgment dated 27.04.2020 passed by this Court.
2. The matter was then listed for considering what appropriate punishment was required to be awarded to the contemnors. By Order dated 04.05.2020 said three contemnors were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three months with imposition of fine of Rs.2,000/- and were directed to surrender before the Secretary General of this Court. However, considering the effects of Covid-19 Pandemic, the contemnors were granted time of sixteen weeks to surrender.
3. Thereafter, certain applications including those seeking recall of the order dated 27.04.2020 came up before this Court which did not consider it appropriate to recall the order dated 27.4.2020. However, by its successive orders dated 18.08.2020, 03.09.2020, 11.12.2020 and 15.04.2021, the time to surrender in terms of order dated 04.05.2020 was repeatedly extended and the time granted by the last order dated 15.4.2021 is to expire today.
4. Yesterday, when the matters came up before us, a prayer was made that Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.243, 244 and Writ Petition (C) No.1377 of 2020 had been filed by these three contemnors on the lines identical to pending Writ Petition (C) No.1053 of 2020. It was, therefore, directed yesterday that the instant Suo Motu Contempt Petition and applications arising therefrom along with said three writ petitions preferred by the contemnors be listed before an appropriate Court.
5. Accordingly, the matters are listed before us today.
6. We have been apprised of the contents of Writ Petition (C) No.1053 of 2020. In that case, the contemnor was sentenced on a charge of criminal contempt and Writ Petition (C) No.1053 of 2020 prays:
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction framing rules and guidelines providing for intra-court appeal against conviction in original criminal contempt cases as referred in prayer (a.) above.60
(c) Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that review petitions filed against orders of conviction by Supreme Court in original criminal contempt cases would be heard in open court by a different bench;”
7. It appears that Review Petition No.326 of 2020, arising from the judgment and order holding said contemnor guilty, came up before a Bench of three Judges of this Court. It took note of the assertions made in Interim Application No.131968 of 2020 filed by said contemnor praying that consideration of Review Petition be deferred till Writ Petition (C) No.1053 of 2020 was heard/ adjudicated upon by this Court and accordingly by its order dated 16.12.2020 this Court adjourned the Review Petition.
8. It further appears that Writ Petition (C) No.1053 of 2020 has not come up before this Court for consideration.
9. Coming back to the writ petitions filed by the instant contemnors, various prayers have been made in the writ petitions but Mr.Tanveer Nizam, learned advocate appearing for Rashid Khan Pathan, Mr.Partho Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for Vijay S. Kurle and Nilesh C. Ojha, Contemnor appearing in-person have readily submitted that except the prayers identical to those made in Writ Petition (C) No.1053 of 2020, rest of the prayers in the instant Writ Petitions, be allowed to be withdrawn. We record the statements and direct that the prayers in said three Writ Petitions shall be read accordingly.
10. It is also submitted by said learned counsel and the Contemnor-in-person that, if at any stage any allegations or assertions were made against the appointment of, and the conduct of instant matter by Mr. Siddharth Luthra as Amicus Curiae, the C
The judgment established the possibility of an intra-court appeal for conviction in criminal contempt cases.
Contempt proceedings are liable to be closed or stayed when the subject matter of the alleged disobedience is sub judice before an appellate court, subject to the petitioner's liberty to revive if th....
The court balanced procedural adherence with equitable considerations regarding a party's inability to produce proof due to pandemic-related restrictions.
Interim stay in appeal halts contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of prior order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with the court's direction, even if delayed, can prevent a finding of contempt. Additionally, the court clarified the scope of a co....
A contempt petition is liable to be closed when the respondent satisfies the court that the order allegedly violated has been duly complied with.
When a contempt petition involves a dispute over the quantum of payment made post-compliance, rather than willful disobedience, the court may close the contempt proceedings and direct the aggrieved p....
Compliance with a court direction renders a contempt petition redundant, as the threshold of willful disobedience is not met when the order is satisfied.
Contempt petition closed upon recording compliance with court order, liberty granted to challenge if aggrieved.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.