Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act not ultra vires Article 14; appeal only for punished contemnor valid as contempt between court-contemnor; informant not party; statutory right, not inherent; equality among equals.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr Umesh Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Shubham Gautam, learned A.C to A.A.G-V for the Respondent State.

2. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, questions the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter alia, on the ground that by giving a right of appeal only to the contemnor, who is punished in the exercise of Court’s contempt jurisdiction and denying such a right to the contempt petitioner, amounts to discrimination, which is otherwise prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. In the Petition, the petitioner contends that Section 19 is ultra vires because it is “incomplete as it is limited to the contemnor as intra appeal for non-compliance of Hon’ble Courts order and it is not available to the petitioner who is party to the partition whose petition (Contempt petition) is dropped without compliance which amounts more than to dismissal of the writ petition and left no option to move forward to get justice.”

4. Mr Choubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had secured a favourable order dated 06.03.2019 in W.P.(S) No. 4418 of 2013, which the respondents failed to comply with. He further submitted that the petitioner subsequently filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1095 of 2019 to address this non- compliance by alleging contempt of court. By an order dated 24.02.2023, the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to entertain the contempt petition but granted the petitioner liberty to pursue his remedies in accordance with law.

5. Mr Choubey submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.02.2023 cannot be appealed because of the discrimination introduced under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He further submitted that had the contemnors been punished, they would have been entitled to a right of appeal under of the said Act. Conversely, for a person such as the petitioner, who is aggrieved by what he perceives to be a contempt of court, the statute provides no such remedy. On this basis, Mr Choubey submitted that the statutory scheme results in patent discrimination, which is prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Choubey therefore submits that on the aforementioned grounds, Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is liable to be declared ultra vires, illegal, and unconstitutional. In the alternative, he submits that the provisions of should be read down to afford a right of appeal to a petitioner who initiates a contempt proceeding in the event the petition is dismissed or not entertained. He further submits that through such a reading down, the constitutionality of may be salvaged.

7. Mr Shubham Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent-State, submits that Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is legally sound and free from constitutional infirmity. He first points out that contempt is primarily a matter between the contemnor and the Court, in which the role of the petitioner is limited to a