The main legal point established is the interpretation of the Contempt of Courts Act and the Constitution of India in relation to the maintainability of contempt proceedings before the High Court and the liberty granted by the Supreme Court for seeking redress through appropriate proceedings.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. (VC). - Case is being taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

2. Prayer in the petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is for initiating proceedings against the respondents for intentional, willful and deliberate disobedience of judgment / directions dated 13.04.2009 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.483 of 2004 in case titled as 'Avinash Mehrotra versus Union of India and others.

3. In view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'M/s Rajureshwar and Associates versus State of Maharashtra', 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 972 as well as in 'Vitusah Oberoi and others versus Court of Its Own Motion', 2017(2) SCC 314 query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner to address arguments on the maintainability of the instant petition before the High Court. Relevant extract of the aforementioned judgments is as under :-

Relevant extract of the decision in M/s Rajureshwar and Associates versus State of Maharashtra', 2013(2) RCR (Civil) 972 :-

4. Having perused the reasons in the light of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court as it cannot be disputed that the judgment and order passed by a particular Court, especially the Supreme Court if alleged not to have been complied, will have to be taken care of and addressed by the Court which passed the order sought to be complied. The petitioner, therefore, wrongly approached the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings and the same has rightly not been entertained. Challenge to the said order by this special leave petition, therefore, is not fit to be entertained; hence the special leave petition is dismissed.

Likewise, relevant extract of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Vitusah Oberoi and others versus Court of Its Own Motion', 2017(2) SCC 314 is as under:-

10. There is, from a plain reading of the above, nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of the Constitution which can be said to empower the High Court to initiate proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court under Article 129 and High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution are both declared to be Courts of Record. One of the recognised attributes of a court of record is the power to punish for its contempt and the contempt of courts subordinate to it. That is precisely why Articles 129 and 215, while declaring the Supreme Court and the High Courts as Courts of Record, recognise the power vested in them to punish for their own contempt. The use of the expression "including" in the said provisions is explanatory in character. It signifies that the Supreme Court and the High Courts shall, as Courts of Records, exercise all such powers as are otherwise available to them including the power to punish for their own contempt. Whether or not the power to punish for contempt of a subordinate court was an attribute of a court of record fell for consideration of this Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406. The argument there was that the Supreme Court could not initiate contempt proceedings based on an incident that involved a subordinate court like a Chief Judicial Magistrate working in the State of Gujarat. That contention was examined and rejected by this Court. It was held that the language employed in Article 129 indicated that the Supreme Court is a Court of Record and was entitled not only to punish for its own contempt but to do all that which is within the powers of a Court of Record. This Court held that since the Constitution has designed the Supreme Court as a Court of Record, Article 129 thereof recognises the existing inherent power of a Court of Record in its full plenitude including the power to punish for its own contemp