The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not encompass violations of subordinate court orders unless reported by a Presiding Officer and should defer to special enactments for enforcement.

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

This Contempt Petition has been instituted under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the undertaking given by them before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.872 of 2014 in Crl.A.No.9 of 2014.

2.The Principal Sessions Court, Madurai passed the following order on

03.02.2014:-

“2.Heard. Perused the petition and judgment. The trial court has convicted the petitioner / accused No.1 for the offences u/s. 294(b), 47 and 427 of IPC and petitioner / accused No.2 u/s 447 of IPC and sentenced A-1 to undergo S.I for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo S.I for one week u/s. 294(b) IPC and A-1 and A-1 and A-2 to undergo S.I or 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo S.I for 2 months to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo S.I for one week u/s 447 of IPC and A-1 to undergo S.I for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo S.I for one month u/s 427 of IPC. Fine amount was paid by the petitioners. The petitioners were on bail during trial. The lower court has suspended the sentence till filing the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioners have preferred appeal against the judgment of the lower court, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended till the disposal of the appeal and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- along with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.”

3.Mr.K.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent has violated several orders passed by the High Courts also and by residing in United States of America, he is continuing to commit contempt.

4.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would oppose by stating that proclamation order has been stayed by the High Court and the Judgment of the Principal Sessions Court was reversed by the High Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.330 and 641 of 2019, dated 23.11.2023.

5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the said order dated 23.11.2023, Special Leave Petition in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2608 of 2024 is preferred and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

6.May that as it be, this Court is inclined to examine maintainability of this Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Act.

7. Section 10 of the Act contemplates power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself

8.The provision contemplates that High Court is empowered to initiate contempt proceedings for the contempt committed in Subordinate Courts. However, it does not contemplate that Contempt Petition can be filed under Section 10 of the Act in respect of non-implementation or violation of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts. For invoking of the Act, in the event of any contempt being committed by any person in Subordinate Courts, the Presiding Officer or the learned Principal District Judge, as the case may be, has to submit a report to the High Court, which would be a basis for initiation of the contempt proceedings under of the Act. of the Act would not be of any assistance