2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9247

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, Mohan Pyare, JJ
Bashist Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Tarun Gauba – Respondent
Criminal Contempt Application No. 01 of 2025 | Original Application No. 853 of 2009

Public-interest restrictions during a major event, without evidence of intent to obstruct justice or grave interference, do not automatically constitute contempt; absence from proceedings due to such restrictions may be excused and the petition can be dismissed if no substantial contempt is shown.

Headnote:(A) Central statutes and sections relevant to the case: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c); Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 12 and 15; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 17.

(B) Key legal principles or points discussed: "What constitutes contempt of court? ... the common law definition of contempt of Court is: ’An act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.’" and "criminal contempt as defined by the Act: 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) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends or 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." Further, "Sub-section (2) of Section 15, properly construed, does not restrict the power of the High Court to take cognizance of and punish contempt of a subordinate court, on its own motion." and the constant aim of contempt law as explained in the cited authorities to preserve the authority of the courts and the administration of justice rather than the dignity of individual judges.

(C) Additional points: "the press note issued to avoid any inconvenience to the general public and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the said press note was issued intentionally to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner." and "There is no sufficient ground to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985"; and finally, "the instant criminal contempt petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed at this stage itself without issuance of notice."

(D)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-contestant, a practising advocate before the Tribunal, contends that a police press note restricting movement in a region during a major public event prevented attendance at a hearing on 11.02.2025; the police notice was stated to be in public interest; the Tribunal postponed the hearing; no adverse order was passed against the contemnors; the petitioner sought cognizance for criminal contempt. (E)

Findings of Court:
The press release was issued to avoid public inconvenience and not to obstruct justice; absence from proceedings due to the restriction does not establish contempt; no grave, deliberate interference shown; no basis to initiate contempt proceedings. (F)

Issues: Whether a press note restricting movement during a public event amounts to contempt of court; whether absence from proceedings due to such restrictions constitutes contempt; whether the action obstructed the administration of justice. (G)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the broad definitional scope of criminal contempt, but held that (i) the press note was issued in public interest and not to obstruct justice, (ii) there is no grave interference or intention shown to obstruct proceedings, and (iii) there is no sufficient ground to entertain contempt jurisdiction; consequently, the petition was not to be entertained. Key cited extract: "Judicial notice of the heavy rush of the public in the Prayagraj city as well as Kumbh Mela Region can be taken and aforesaid press release was issued to avoid any inconvenience to the general public and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the said press note was issued intentionally to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner." (H)

Result: "Thus, this is not a fit case for issuance of notice against the alleged contemnors / opposite parties" and the petition is dismissed: "the instant criminal contempt petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed at this stage itself without issuance of notice."