Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Shri Binod Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Ors. – Respondents
CPAN 621 of 2025 In WPA 30649 of 2016
Decided On : 07-05-2025
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Petitioners have complained of violation of the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 passed by us in WPA 30649 of 2016 and in other writ petitions and appeals.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgement and order dated April 22, 2024 on April 3, 2025 save and except one of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 being modified. He has pointed out that, one of the directions contained in the judgement and order dated April 22, 2024 was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on April 8, 2025. All other directions have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has submitted that, petitioners are seeking implementation of such directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 which have not been set aside or modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this contempt petition.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has raised the issue of maintainability of the contempt petition before this Hon’ble Court, at the threshold. He has submitted that, since, Special Leave Petitions were filed against the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 and since such Special Leave Petitions were admitted and the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeals directed against the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024, by a judgment and order dated April 3, 2025, the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 of the High Court has merged with the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court which has jurisdiction to consider an application for contempt of the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025, is the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has relied upon 2000 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 359 (Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another), 2014 Volume 16 Supreme Court Cases 88 (Dineshan K.K vs. R.K. Singh and Another) 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152 (Sailesh Kumar vs. Smitha R. IAS and Another) and 2025 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 543 (Balbir Singh and Another vs. Baldev Singh) in support of his contention of merger.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has also drawn the attention of the Court to Articles 129, 141, 142 and 215 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution of India is competent to issue contempt proceedings if, violation of its judgment and order is complained of.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 passed by the High Court has merged with the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment and order dated April 22, 2025 ceases to exist either for the purpose of review or for the purpose of enforcement of such judgment and order.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequent to April 3, 2025. He has submitted that, one of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 of the High Court was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on April 8, 2025. He has also pointed out that, time to perform one of the directions of the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 of the High Court stood modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated April 17, 2025.
8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 2 has submitted that, the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 passed by the High Court is no longer available for enforcement by the High Court in view of the merger of such judgment and order with the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated April 3, 2025. Moreover,
(1) Doctrine of Merger – When Special Leave Petition is dismissed or disposed of without granting leave there would be no application of Doctrine of Merger, even if order is passed with reasons.(2) C....
The court clarified that in contempt proceedings, the judge's role is limited to assessing compliance with prior orders, not issuing new directives, emphasizing the maintainability of appeals under S....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Contempt Court must be conscious that it is not possessed of the powers of other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal against th....
An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against orders imposing punishment for contempt; non-punitive orders are not appealable.
Doctrine of merger does not apply to contempt proceedings when Single Judge order confirmed by Division Bench.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the appealability of a contempt Judge's order under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules....
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
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
