JUDGMENT- R.M. LODHA, J. :--- Mr. C.J. Sawant, Advocate General has raised preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of this Court in this contempt petition. He submits that in the contempt petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that respondents be punished for gross, wilful and deliberate contempt committed by them by not complying with the Judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on 16-8-95 and according to Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate General, this Court has no jurisdiction to examine whether the order of the Supreme Court delivered on 16-8-95 has been complied with or not. In other words the objection of the learned Advocate-General is that the High Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or under the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the civil contempt of order of Judgment or the direction of the Supreme Court.

2.Confronted with this preliminary objection raised by the Advocate-General, on the other hand Mr. M.P. Vashi who is petitioner in person strenuously argues that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not expressly bar the invocation of jurisdiction by the High Court if the Judgement, order or direction of the Apex Court has been wilfully or deliberately disobeyed. Referring to the definition of "civil contempt" occurring in section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 Mr. Vashi would submit that civil contempt means wilful disobedience of any Judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court and according to him that Court may be any Court inferior or superior to the High Court and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the Judgment passed by the Apex Court on 16-8-95 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7373 and 7374 of 1995, State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragji Vashi, has been complied or not.

3.The question is of considerable importance and has to be answered in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and, rules framed thereunder by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. Article 129 of the Constitution of India provides that Supreme Court shall be Court of records and shall have all the power of such a Court including the power of punish for contempt of itself.

4.As regards the High Court to be a Court of record Article 215 makes a provision that every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

5.The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which has come into force with effect from 24-12-1971 defines and limits the power of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and regulates the procedure in relation thereto. Section 2 of the Act deals with the definitions "contempt of Court", "civil contempt", "criminal contempt", "High Court", among others, and, the said definitions read thus-

Section 2. Definitions.---In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,---

(a) "contempt of Court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;

(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

(d) "High Court" means the High Court for a State or a Union territory, and includes the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory.

6.Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document