IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that while contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor, the court has discretion to allow assistance from other parties to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.) :

1. Alleged contemnor as the review applicant has applied for review of specific portion of the order dated July 18, 2024.

2. Review applicant has appeared in person. He has contended that, review of an order is permissible when, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. According to him applying wrong law is an error on face of the record and can be corrected on review. In support of such contention he has relied upon 2024 INSC 424 (Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.).

3. Review applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the order under review dated July 18, 2014. He has contended that, a Contempt Rule had been issued by the learned Single Judge on its own motion as against him. In response to such Contempt Rule, he had appeared before the Division Bench on July 18, 2024 when the order under review was passed. He has contended that, he is seeking review of paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the order under review. He has contended that, although the order under review permitted him to use an affidavit in response to the Rule, such order also directed him to make over a copy of such affidavit to the other parties to the proceedings in which the Contempt Rule was issued. He has contended that, no other parties excepting the Court and the alleged contemnor is relevant as the matter is between the Court and the contemnor. Consequently, the direction for making over copies of the affidavit to other parties to the proceedings from which the Contempt Rule emanated was an error on the face of the record and requires review. Review applicant has relied upon 1975 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 535 (Baradakanta Mishra vs. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra, Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court), 1998 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 409 (Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India and Another), 2010 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 673 (Biman Basu vs. Kallol Guha Thakurta and Another), 2017 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 757 (2) (Suo Motu Contempt Petion (C) No. 1 of 2017), 2017 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 1 ( In Re Hon’ble Justice C. S. Karnan), order dated August 20, 2020 passed in SMC (Crl) Nos. 1/2020 (In Re Prashant Bhusan & Anr.) and 2023 INSC 805 (Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari vs. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. by LRS. & Ors.) in support of his contentions.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the University, which is one of the parties from which, the Contempt Rule emanated, has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 29 of the Contempt Rules framed by this Hon’ble Court. He has submitted that, his client is not an outsider to the proceedings. The Contempt Rule had emanated from a proceeding in which his client was a party. Presence of his client in the Contempt Rule is required so that, every aspect of the matter can be brought to the notice of Court. He has contended that, his client would be in a position to assist the Court with regard to the matters complained of.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the University has relied upon 1988 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 26 (D.N. Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal) in support of the contention that, his client can be heard by the Court in this contempt proceedings.

6. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the University.

7. Review applicant has referred to Rule 2 (2) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 framed by this Hon’ble Court as also Rule 31 and 34 thereof. He has contended that, none of the other parties to the proceedings from which the Contempt Rule emanated has any right of audience before this Court.

8. A writ petition had been filed by the writ petitioner against the University seeking various reliefs. During the pendency of such writ petition, the alleged contemnor herein made certain posts on the social platform alleged to be derogatory to the Court. It is also alleged as against the review applicant that there are adverse observations against him made by different Courts. Review app