Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 105098
2024/KER/20406 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH TH THURSDAY, THE 11 DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1437 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 IN WP(C)NO. 11629 OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 124, 129, 48, 106, 21, 160, 52, 95 & 67:
1 M.P.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.(L) KELU NAMBIAR, JUNIOR ENGINEER, (RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT "SURYA", PULIYATHU VALAPPU, P.O.MORAZHA, KANNUR -670331., PIN - 670331
2 RAMESAN V.K, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.(L)ACHUTHAN K., JUNIOR ENGINEER,(RETIRED), KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT "ACHUTHAM", ACHUKULANGARA, P.O.PARAL, KANNUR -670671.
3 PURUSHOTHAMAN M, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.(L)K.P.KORAN, FOREMAN, (RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT MADAPPURAKKAL (H), NEAR VELAM GANAPATI KSHETHRAM, P.O.MAYYIL, KANNUR -
670602.
4 RADHAKRISHNAN T., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.(L)RAMUNNI K.
JUNIOR ENGINEER,(RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL (H), MANGAD, KALLIASSERI P.O. KANNUR -670562.
5 C. SAYED AHMED THANGAL, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.(L)KUNHIKOOYA THANGAL, JUNIOR ENGINEER, (RETIRED), KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR -670562 RESIDING AT KUNNATHPALLI (H), P.O.VALAPPATTANAM, KANNUR -670010.
6 K.M.THANKAMANI, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.(L)KUNHIKANNAN, JUNIOR ENGINEER,(RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT "VAISHAKH", P.O.EDATT, PAYYNNUR, KANNUR -670327, PIN - 670327
7 K. RAJASREE, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.V.VELU, FOREMAN (RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT "SHARANYA", MANGAD, P.O.KALLIASSERI, KANNUR -670562., PIN - 670562
8 SAVITHA V., AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANAN K.V., JUNIOR ENGINEER,(RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT U.K(H), KEECHERI, ANCHAMPEEDIKA P.O., KANNUR -670331., PIN - 670331
9 P.M.PRAKASHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.(L)P.M.KUMARAN, FOREMAN, (RETIRED) KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KALLIASSERRY P.O, KANNUR-670562. RESIDING AT "SHARADHA", MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS P.O. KANNUR -
670562.
BY ADV KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT/S:
1 SRI.EBIN VISWANATH V AGE AND FATHER’S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, V.K.COMPLEX, COURT ROAD, KANNUR -670001., PIN - 670001 *ADDL.R2 SRI. K.G.KRISHNA KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KELTRON NAGAR, KALLIASSERI, KANNUR 670562 IS –
IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD 9/8/23 IN IA 3/23 IN COC 1437/22 *ADDL.R3 SRI M.PRAKASHAN, GENERAL MANAGER, KELTRON COMPONENT COMPLEX LIMITED, KELTRON NAGAR, KALLIASSERI, KANNUR 670562 IS IMPLEADED –
VIDE ORDER DTD 9/8/23 IN IA 3/23 IN COC 1437/22 BY ADVS.NITA N.S SMT.M.A.ZOHRA, SC, KELTRON THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.R.
A writ of mandamus becomes unenforceable and contempt proceedings are inappropriate when the legal foundation for the original court order is subsequently declared valid by a higher court, as the lower court's directive is superseded by the superior court’s interpretation of the law.
Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Initiation of proceedings - Mandamus issued by a court becomes ineffective and unenforceable when the legal basis upon which it was granted is subsequently declared valid by a higher court, rendering contempt proceedings inapplicable. (Paras 1, 26, 27)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 141 - Binding nature of precedents - Legal principles established by a higher court serve as the law of the land and supersede previous judicial directions issued by lower courts that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's declaration. (Paras 26, 27)
(C) Judgments - In personam vs in rem - While a judgment in personam generally binds only the parties, when it concerns the constitutional validity of a statute or regulatory scheme, a superior court's pronouncement effectively nullifies previous writs of mandamus issued based on the now-validated law, regardless of whether a formal appeal was filed specifically against every individual petitioner. (Paras 17, 19, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a petition seeking compliance with a High Court judgment that had set aside a pension amendment scheme. Subsequently, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the same amendment scheme in a different set of appeals. The respondent contended that the original order was no longer enforceable in view of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal foundation for the previously issued mandamus had been dismantled by the categorical validation of the regulatory framework by the higher court. Consequently, enforcing the prior order through contempt jurisdiction is legally untenable as the underlying directive no longer holds efficacy under the current state of law.
Issues: Whether a mandamus issued by a court remains enforceable in contempt proceedings after the Supreme Court has declared the underlying regulatory scheme valid, and whether the absence of a specific appeal against an individual petitioner's case exempts them from the binding nature of the Supreme Court's law.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus issued on the premise of an invalid regulation becomes unenforceable once a higher court declares said regulation valid. A judicial directive cannot be enforced via contempt once the legal basis for that directive has ceased to exist under the doctrine of binding precedents.
Result: The contempt petition is closed.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are petitioners 124, 129, 48, 106, 21, 160, 52, 95 and 67 respectively in W.P.(C)No.11629 of 2015, have filed this contempt case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A-I judgment dated 12.10.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court in Sasikumar P. and others v. Union of India and others [ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614], whereby W.P.(C)No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters, including W.P.(C)No.11629 of 2015, were disposed of by setting aside the Employees’ Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 brought into force by notification No.G.S.R.609 (E) dated 22.08.2014 and also all consequential orders and proceedings issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation on the basis of the aforesaid amendment.
2. On 23.09.2022, when this contempt case came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation took notice for the respondent. The personal appearance of the respondent was dispensed with, by the order dated 23.09.2022.
3. On 14.03.2023, the respondent filed an affidavit dated10.03.2023, pointing out Annexure R1(A) judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters - Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. [2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634] arising out of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sasikumar P. and others v. Union of India and others [ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614] and the connected matters arising out of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Rajasthan. In paragraph 5 of that affidavit, the respondent has pointed out Annexure R1(B) order of the Apex Court dated 25.02.2021 in SLP(C)Nos.8658-59 of 2019, whereby the Apex Court directed that pending further consideration, no contempt application seeking implementation of any of the orders passed in the four categories of matters shall be taken up by any court. The first category mentioned in the order dated 25.02.2021 is SLP(C)Nos.8658-8659 of 2019, W.P.(C)No.233 of 2018 [Item Nos.1 & 1.1], arising from the judgment dated 12.10.2018 of the High Court of Kerala. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated25.02.2021 in SLP(C)Nos.8658-59 of 2019 read thus;
“It is made clear that under no circumstance the matters shall be adjourned and the matters shall be taken up for hearing on day-to-day basis.
For facility, we direct;
(i) SLP(C)Nos.8658-8659 of 2019, W.P.(C)No.233 of 2018 [Item Nos.1 & 1.1] [arising from the judgment dated12.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala];
(ii) SLP(C) Diary No.46219 of 2019 [Item No.2] [arising from the judgment dated 22.5.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi] along with connected matter being SLP(C) No. 1366 of 2021 [Item No.1.54] [arising from the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi];
(iii) SLP(C)No.2465 of 2021 [Item No.1.51] [arising from judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur]; and
(iv) Cont. Pet.(C)No. 1917-1918 of 2018 in C.A.No. 10013- 10014 of 2016 [Item No.1.20] [seeking implementation of the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by this Court in C.A.No.10013 of 2016 : R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner , Employees Provident Fund Organization and others] shall be taken up as lead matters representing the respective categories of matters.”
Rest of the matters shall also be listed on the same day.
Pending further consideration, no contempt application seeking implementation of any of the orders passed in the aforesaid four categories of matters, shall be taken up by any Court.
In the contempt petitions pending in this Court, personal presence of the alleged contemnor stands dispensed with.
(underline supplied)
4. By the order dated 16.03.2023, the respondent was directed to file an affidavit with regard to the enhanced pension already given to 76 persons, pursuant to the direction con
