A contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable without the Advocate General's consent, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and accountability.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pleased to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for scandalizing the office of a Judge of this Court in particular and the High Court as an institution in general and for interfering with the administration of justice by attributing bias and impure motives to the orders of this this Court.

As a prelude, we remind, on May 18, 1951, when the provisional Parliament of India (the body that succeeded and had mostly the same composition as been constituent assembly) was debating the first constitutional (Amendment Bill). Dr.B.R.Ambedkar discussed the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madras vs. Chapakam Dorairajan 1951 AIR 226 and Venkataramana vs. the State of Madras 1966 AIR 1089 and called them “utterly unsatisfactory”. The house chided him for disparaging the Apex Court and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar responded:

“I have often in the course of my practice told the presiding judge in very emphatic terms that I am bound to obey his judgment but I am not bound to respect it. That is the liberty that every lawyer enjoys in telling the judge that his judgment is wrong and I am not prepared to give up that liberty”.

2. The Contempt Petition on hand has been instituted under Section 15 of Contempts of Courts Act, 1971, to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against the respondent for scandalising the office of a Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for interfering with the administration of justice by attributing bias and impure motives to the orders of this Court.

3. Question arises, whether the relief as such sought for in the contempt petition is maintainable under Section 15 of the Contempts of Courts Act (hereafter referred as Act) or not.

4. Section 15 specifies how criminal contempt is to be taken cognizance of. It will be useful to set out here the relevant portions of this Section.

15.Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases:

i) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by:

a) the Advocate-General, or

b) any other person, with the consent in writing to the Advocate-General,

c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.

5. In the present case, the petitioner approached the Advocate General seeking his consent for initiation of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Act. The Advocate General rejected the consent petition No.15 of 2023 dated 22.09.2023, which resulted in institution of the present contempt petition at the instance of the petitioners.

6. The initial point to be considered by this Court is, whether rejection order of the Advocate General would provide cause and right to a third person to file a petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. In the context of right to file contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it was elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.N.Duda vs. V.P.Shiv Shankar and others, 1988 (3) SCC 167 V.P.Shiv Shankar was the former Union Minister against whom the criminal contempt proceeding was initiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act made an observation that “if the consent is withheld without reasons or without consideration of that right granted to any other person under Section 15 of the Act that could be investigated in an application made to the Court. ................... if such right is not considered on relevant materials that action is justifiable in an appropriate proceedings for contempt”.

8. In the absence of consent