Court reiterated that review petitions cannot overturn prior contempt findings made by a different judge without a new legal basis established.

O R D E R

[RP Nos.247/2026, 256/2026, 279/2026, 286/2026, 297/2026] Dated this the 17^th March, 2026

1.These five Review Petitions are filed by the Petitioners in Contempt Cases (Civil) Nos.1820/2020, 2459/2019, 1855/2020, 1890/2020 , and 1871/2020 to review the judgment dated 11.02.2026 by which this Court dismissed all the Contempt of Court Cases.

2. I heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, instructed by Adv. Sri. P.P. Biju for the Petitioners, and the learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan, instructed by Central Government Counsel, Sri. Suvin R. Menon, for the Respondents.

3.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that there is error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, this Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora [2025 KHC OnLine 6377 (SC)], in which it is held that when the Single Judge of the High Court found that the Respondent is guilty of contempt of court, it is not permissible for another learned Single Judge who is considering the matter later to revisit the issue as to whether the Respondent is guilty or not. This Court passed Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024 in the Cont. Case(C) No.2459 of 2019 holding that the Respondents have committed contempt of court. While passing the impugned judgment, this Court omitted to note that the said Orders are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such case, this Court ought to have proceeded against the Respondent for punishing him for the contempt committed by him. This Court failed to understand that the Order dated 15.07.2024 was passed by this Court dismissing I.A. No.2/2024 filed by the Respondents to vacate the Order dated 05.12.2023. In such case, this Court ought to have proceeded from the stage after the passing of the Order dated 15.07.2024 instead of dismissing the Contempt Cases.

4.On the other hand, the learned ASGI submitted that this Court found that on the basis of the Annexure-VIII Order dated 01.12.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if it is the case of the Petitioners therein that they have complied with the directions, it is for them to demonstrate the same before the learned Single Judge and this Court considered the question whether the Respondents have succeeded in demonstrating that they have complied with the directions in Annexure-I judgment. This Court has assigned valid reasons for not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha (supra) Even otherwise, the decision in Rajan Chadha (supra) is clearly distinguishable as the proceedings in the contempt proceedings had not reached the final stage of punishing the contemner. At any rate, even if this Court has arrived at an erroneous decision, it is a matter to be agitated in Appeal, and the Petitioners cannot maintain Review Petitions to review the said judgment.

5. I have considered the rival contentions.

6.While passing the impugned judgment, this Court found that in the Order dated 05.12.2023, the learned Single Judge of this Court found that the Respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court in Annexure-I judgment and that it was further directed the Respondent No.2 to comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Annexure R1(f) as has been done in Annexures V & VI within eight weeks from the date of passing the said Order and if orders are not issued, the Respondent No.2 shall appear in person and show cause why ac