Back
2024 Supreme(All) 916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Prof. Soniya Nityanand And Others – Appellants
Versus
Prof. Ashish Wakhlu – Respondent
Special Appeal No. 125 of 2024
Decided On : 30-05-2024
For the Appellants : Lalta Prasad Misra, Shubham Tripathi.
For the Respondent: Sandeep Kumar Ojha.
IMPORTANT POINT
The initiation of contempt proceedings requires the establishment of jurisdictional facts and a prima facie case of contempt, and the court must exercise its powers with due diligence and adherence to procedural fairness.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT - CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Chapter VIII Rule V - The court discussed the inherent powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly the definition of civil contempt and the requirements for issuing notice under Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing jurisdictional facts and a prima facie case of contempt before proceeding with contempt notices, ultimately concluding that the contempt court had committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the impleadment and issuing notices without proper satisfaction of these requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University against an order of the Contempt Court that allowed the impleadment of the appellants in a contempt application. The appellants contended that they were not part of the Executive Council at the time of the alleged contemptuous resolution and that the contempt proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contempt court had erred in allowing the impleadment and issuing notices without establishing a prima facie case of contempt against the appellants. The court noted that the appellants were not members of the Executive Council when the resolution was passed and that no allegations of contempt were made against them in the impleadment application.
Issues: Whether the contempt court had jurisdiction to issue notices to the appellants without establishing a prima facie case of contempt and whether the appellants could be held liable for actions taken by their predecessors in office.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for contempt proceedings to be initiated, there must be clear jurisdictional facts and a prima facie case of contempt established. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require a higher standard of proof, necessitating careful consideration before issuing notices.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to move for discharge of the contempt notices, with the request for the Contempt Judge to consider the relevant aspects of the matter regarding the appellants' liability for contempt.
JUDGMENT :
(Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an appeal by the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow under Chapter VIII Rule V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging an order passed by the Contempt Court on 08.05.2024 in Contempt Application (Civil) No.963 of 2020 [Prof. Ashish Wakhlu vs. Prof. M.L. Bhatt Vice-Chancellor, K.G.M.C., Lucknow & Ors.] In fact an application filed by the respondent for impleadment of the appellants herein has been allowed and then notices have been issued to them. The said impugned order reads as under:-
"(Order on Impleadment Application i.e. I.A./26/2024)
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. This is an application filed for seeking impleadment.
3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application is sufficient.
4. Accordingly, the impleadment application is allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to carry out necessary impleadment, forthwith.
(Order on Contempt Application)
1. Let notice be issued to newly impleaded respondents i.e. respondent nos. 11 to 23 within a week to show cause as to why they should not be punished for wilfull disobedience of the directions of this Court, returnable within two weeks failing which the charges may be framed after summoning the contemnors.
2. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with the notice.
3. List this case on 09.07.2024 within top ten cases."
3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that jurisdictional facts which have to necessarily preexist the issuance of any notice in a contempt proceedings were absolutely absent in the case at hand yet learned Single Judge without satisfying himself, prima facie, about any civil contempt having been committed by the appellants has not only allowed the application for impleadment but also issued notice to them for showing the cause as to why they should not be punished for willful disobedience of this Court, failing which, charges may be framed after summoning the contemnors. The contention is that the contempt petition was filed in the year 2020 alleging that the Executive Council of the University by passing a Resolution dated 08.06.2020 had violated an interim order passed on 01.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.35784 (S/S) of 2018 filed by the respondent. The appellants whose impleadment has been allowed and notices have been issued by the impugned order were not Members of the Executive Council on 08.06.2020. In fact, appellant no.1 has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor much later, that is, in August, 2023. The other appellants have become Members of the Executive Council much after 08.06.2020 and none of these appellants had any role to play in the passing of the Resolution dated 08.06.2020 which according to the respondent was contemptuous. In fact, in the affidavit in support of the application for impleadment, there is no averment whatsoever as to how the appellants herein had committed civil contempt but ignoring all these facts and without recording any prima facie satisfaction, the Contempt Court has passed the impugned order in the absence of jurisdictional facts which would give jurisdiction to the learned Single Judge to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants and in the absence of any prima facie satisfaction recorded by the Contempt Court regarding existence of such jurisdictional facts. The contempt Court has, thus, committed a jurisdictional error.
4. The submission was that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. These are very harsh proceedings and therefore, thei
