Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATOR AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
Ramesh Ranganathan and Chala Kodanda Ram, JJ.
K.Mallaiah & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Sandeep Kumar Sultania & Ors. —Respondents
Contempt Case No.933 of 2009
Decided on 17.7.2015
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 12—Contempt of court—In examining the question whether there is contempt of court or not, court is both accuser as well as Judge of accusation—It behoves court to act with as great circumspection as possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment—It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises that contemnor must be punished—Punishment under law of contempt is called for when lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority—To take action in an unclear case is to make law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged—Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold a person guilty of civil contempt—Element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home charge within meaning of the Act—Unintentional disobedience would not suffice—Even if disobedience is established, absence of wilful disobedience on part of contemnor will not justify his being held guilty—Casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience, which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would not render contemnor liable for punishment. (Paras 25 and 26)
(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 12—Contempt of court—Effective administration of justice would require some penalty to be imposed for disobedience of orders of Court if disobedience is more than casual, accidental or unintentional—In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction Court is primarily concerned with an enquiry whether contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of orders of court—Wilful element is an indispensable requirement to bring home charge within meaning of the Act—Whether or not disobedience is willful depends on facts and circumstances of each case—Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience—If a party who is fully in know of order of Court or is conscious and aware of consequences and implications of Court’s order, ignores it or acts in violation thereof, it must be held that disobedience is wilful—It may not be possible to prove actual intention behind act or omission—Court can approach the question only objectively and it may presume the intention from act done as every man is presumed to intend probable consequence of his act. (Paras 29 and 30)
(D) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 12—Contempt of court—Purging—Apology—Apology can neither be a defence nor a justification for an act which tantamounts to contempt of court—Apology can be accepted in cases where conduct for which apology is given is such that it can be ignored without compromising dignity of court or it is intended to be evidence of real contrition—It should be sincere—Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow, there is no remorse, no regret, no repentance or if it is only a device to escape rigour of law—Such an apology is merely a paper apology—An apology tendered is not to be accepted as a matter of course and court is competent to reject apology and impose punishment recording reasons therefor. (Para 50)
Result: Contempt Case disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.—The order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, violation of which has resulted in the present contempt proceedings being instituted, was passed in W.P. No.1686 of 2009, a Writ Petition filed in public interest and a public interest litigation. The proceedings, in a public interest litigation, are of greater significance than in other cases. These are matters which come up for hearing before the Court on a grievance raised by the public at large or by public- spirited citizens. Courts are called upon to interfere, in the exercise of their extra-ordinary jurisdiction, to ensure maintenance of the rule of law, where the State and its instrumentalities fail to discharge their statutory functions or act contrary to larger public interest. These cases have an impact in rem on larger sections of society, and not in personam simpliciter. (Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India). Compliance with the orders of the Court, in such cases, is imperative.
2. Despite the order of this Court in W.P. No.1686 of 2009 dated 03.02.2009, directing that construction be stopped forthwith, and a contempt case being filed later on 29.06.2009 for violation of the said order, construction of the subject building continued for nearly two years thereafter. None of the respondents herein dispute that the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009 has been violated. Each of them either deny being aware of the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, or disclaim knowledge of construction having continued after 03.02.2009 till it was completed in March, 2011, and the building inaugurated on 11.05.2011.
I. Contempt of Court: Its Scope:
Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. If the judiciary is to perform its duties, function effectively, and remain true to the spirit with which they are entrusted with certain sacred duties, the dignity and authority of the Court should be respected and protected. (Maninderjit Singh Bitta1; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot). Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression contempt of court may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, but the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu).
3. Contempt of Court, an unfortunate and misleading phrase, suggests that it exists to protect the dignity of the judges. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The power exists to ensure that justice shall be done. The public at large, no less the individual litigant, have an interest, and a very real interest, in justice being effectively administered. Unless it is so administered the rights, and indeed the liberty, of the individual would perish. (Jennison v. Baker). The Contempt of Courts Act secures confidence of the people in the administration of justice. If an order, passed by a competent court, is clear and unambiguous, disobedience or breach of such an order would amount to contempt of court. There can be no laxity, as otherwise orders of court would be the subject of mockery. (Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai). Every one, howsoever high he may be, is bound to implement orders of Court. Those who disregard orders of courts do so at their own peril for no one is above the law. (Court on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
