The court clarified its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to punish for contempt and emphasized the continued applicability of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the cases of D.K. Basu and Arnesh Kumar.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. By an order dated 27.01.2022, the Coordinate Bench had placed the matter on 01.02.2022 for framing of charge. Thereafter, since the contentions were raised on behalf of the respondent no. 4 with regard to the non-maintainability of the contempt petition, by a comprehensive order dated 09.02.2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after referring to the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties and taking the note of the facts and law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Aarnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 had opined in Paragraph No. 5 as under:

“Aforesaid facts would leave no manner of doubt that prima facie, there being violation of the directions issued by Apex Court in D.K. Basu’s case and also Arnesh Kumar’s case referred to supra, reiterating our order dated 27.01.2022, we direct the Registry to list this matter for framing the charge/s as against the accused on 23.2.2022.........”

However, the matter was adjourned in view of the request made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent to settle the dispute with the complainant i.e. present applicant.

2. The aforesaid order was assailed by the respondents by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3885 of 2022 before the Apex Court. By the order dated 22.04.2022 the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP by following order:

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.”

Thus, the matter was kept for framing of charges on 23.02.2022 however, it appears that thereafter the matter has been adjourned on number of occasions. It is pertinent to note that the respondent had raised an objection with regard to the non-maintainability of the contempt application in view of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India. When the matter was notified before this Court, the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were again heard at length. A request was made by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwala appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 that in fact the present application filed for initiation of the contempt proceedings is not maintainable under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). Though, in our considered opinion, an opportunity to make such submissions is not available in view of the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as dismissal of the SLP, in the interest of justice the submissions with regard to the maintainability of the present application are allowed to be advanced.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwala, while referring to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act has submitted that this Court cannot take cognizance of contempt alleged to have been committed where the contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In juxtaposition to the provision of Section 10 of the Act, he has referred to the provisions of Section 166 of the IPC.

3.1 It is submitted that the aforesaid provisions in unequivocal terms state that that a public servant if disobeys any direction of law and he conducts himself in such a manner, if such disobedience causes injury to any person shall be punishable for simple imprisonment which may extend to one year or fine or both. It is thus submitted that since there is a specific provision made in the statute, this Court under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act is not competent to try the contempt proceedings.

3.2 He has further submitted that since the petitioner has not invoked the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in absence of such provision, cannot exercise its inherent power of punishing the respondents for the contempt of Court. He has submitted that the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 12 of the Act, in