Strict adherence to procedural requirements under the Contempt of Courts Act is essential; defects in initiation cannot be cured, leading to discharge of the respondent.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Majesty of law never is, nor must be reduced to, a mere claptrap; but to be assuredly exemplified in and by everything Courts do. This is not a daunting task, but an inherent imperative.

2. We commence, being fully cognizant of the limited role that we have to play at this stage.

3. This is because, another learned Bench of this Court had heard this matter in detail and has issued an order on 30.05.2024 – reported as Suo Motu v. Yeshwanth Shenoy [2024 KHC 439], which takes into its fold most of the facts involved, if not all; as also the legal and forensic issues and aspects, as are necessarily and vitally attracted.

4. In order to maintain brevity and avoid prolixity -as is essentially required, we proceed to write as an augment to the order aforementioned, confirming ourselves strictly to the issues not dealt with in it.

5. This contempt case is registered as a suo motu one under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [for brevity, 'the Act']. This case has been initiated on the basis of a letter addressed by a learned Judge of this Court to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, on 09.02.2023. The same was taken as an “information” as postulated under the “Act”; and the Registrar General initiated action, as ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

6. It transpires that this Court, on 28.02.2023, took cognizance of this case, thus issuing a notice to the respondent; and that the latter filed his first Counter Affidavit on 22.05.2023, after having taken time for the same on 03.04.2023; followed by another Counter Affidavit dated 25.09.2023. In the second Counter Affidavit, the respondent raised several objections – stating to be “procedural violations” -inter alia, that the “information”, namely the letter of the Hon'ble Judge dated 09.02.2023, had neither been annexed to the notice which he received, nor was a part of the Judges Papers; which led to another Bench to issue an order on 11.10.2023 to the following effect:

‘One of the contentions raised in the affidavit filed by the respondent is that he is not furnished with a copy of the letter dated 09.02.2023 referred to in the statement of facts. That letter is not seen incorporated in the Judges papers of this contempt case.

In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to incorporate that letter along with connected records in the Judges papers of this contempt case.

A copy of the same along with connected records shall be served on the respondent and also the learned Senior Counsel who has been appointed under Rule 15 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971 to assist this Court, within a week.’

7. The files reveal that, the respondent, thereupon and obviously after having obtained a copy of the “information” being the letter of the learned Judge dated 09.02.2023, in terms of the afore order, filed an additional affidavit dated 01.01.2024, impelling further contentions, including that he is not liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the “Act” and that this Court is bound to discharge him within the rigour of Rule 14 of the Rules under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 [for brevity, 'the Rules'].

8. The order dated 30.05.2024 was issued by this Court in such backdrop, answering all the “procedural violations” alleged by the respondent in his Counter Affidavits dated 22.05.2023 and 25.09.2023, save one; and this is evident from paragraph 8.22 and 8.23 of the said order, reproduced ut infra:

“8.22. In the instant case, though the notice issued to the respondent, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 8.14, is one in Form No.I, the gist of the accusation made in the ‘information’ finds no place in that notice. However, the contents of that letter dated 09.02.2023 are there in the statements of facts constituting the alleged contempt and also in the draft charges prepared and signed by the Registrar General, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraphs 8. 4 and 8. 5 . After the order of this C