The main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Consumer Forum, although not a court in the strict sense, exercises judicial power akin to that of a court and has the trappings of a court, making it a 'court' in the context of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The High Court has the power of superintendence over the District Consumer Forums and Commissions within its territorial jurisdiction, making them 'courts subordinate to the High Court' under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

A legal preliminary objection has been raised about non maintainability of the present contempt proceedings, which have been initiated against the contemnor an Advocate, under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") regarding the alleged contempt committed by him of the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar.

2. We have heard Sri V.M.Zaidi, learned counsel for the contemnor as also learned AGA for the State respondent.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the contemnor that Section 10 of the Act empowers the High Court to punish only in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it and a District Consumer forum is neither a court nor a court subordinate to the High Court. As such the High Court has no jurisdiction to punish a person of any Act of contempt of Consumer Forum and the proceedings initiated against the contemnor by High Court are misconceived. In support of his argument learned counsel has relied upon Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) 9 SCC 221 and Ethopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narayan Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539.

4. On the other hand learned AGA has argued in support of the jurisdiction being vested with the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings even in respect of contempt committed of a Consumer Forum. According to him the Consumer Forum has all the trappings of the Court and as such under Section 10 of the Act is a Court and also subordinate to the High Court.

5. Before proceeding any further it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 of the Act. Section 2 of the said Act defines Contempt of Courts.

6. Civil Contempt is defined by its Section 2(b) as under:-

"2(b) civil contempt " means wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court ".

7. While Criminal Contempt is defined in Section 2(c) as under:-

"2(c) criminal contempt " means the publication (whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii)interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ;"

8. Section 10 of the Act, which empowers the High Court to take cognizance of a contempt in respect of a Court subordinate to it reads as under:-

"Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts- Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself :

Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.(45 of 1860)".

9. In the background of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the submissions made by the learned counsels the questions, which require our considerations are:

(i) Whether a District Consumer Forum is a Court, and

(ii) If yes, whether a District Consumer Forum is subordinate to the High Court.

10. In case the above two questions are answered in affirmative this Court would then be well within its jurisdiction to decide the present contempt proceedings.

11. At the very outset as regards the first question, it will be pertinent to mention that the expression "Court" has no where been defined in the Act. However, certain decisions of the Supreme Court may be referred to derive its correct import in which it has been used in the Act.

12. In State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi