Contempt proceedings require clear jurisdictional facts and prima facie satisfaction of contempt before issuing notices, emphasizing the need for due process.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

( Per: 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 Page No.2 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 Page No.3 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