Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9431

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

2026:PHHC:053914

COCP No. 874 of 2026
Date of Decision: 08.04.2026

Puneet Singh and another
...Petitioners
VS
Gourav Yadav and others
...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Goyat, Legal Aid Counsel
for the petitioners.
Ms. Shiny Chopra, A.A.G. Punjab.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Kumar Goyat
For the Respondents: Shiny Chopra

A contempt petition alleging violation of arrest guidelines under Arnesh Kumar (supra) is not maintainable directly in the High Court unless a judicial or competent authority has already adjudicated upon and established such violation as a question of fact.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 11 and 12 - Constitution of India - Article 215 - Alleged willful disobedience of guidelines regarding arrest and detention set out in Arnesh Kumar (supra) - Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked directly in High Court without prior adjudication by competent court that such guidelines were violated - Contempt court does not act as original or appellate court to determine disputed facts - Petition dismissed with liberty to avail other legal remedies. (Paras 1, 13, 14, 15, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging that their arrest in relation to an FIR was conducted in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in cases like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, specifically claiming failure to follow Section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. procedures, lack of arrest check-lists, and improper custodial treatment.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked without first establishing, before a judicial or other competent authority, that there had been a deliberate disobedience of the Apex Court's guidelines. The contempt court is not the appropriate forum to conduct a trial to establish the occurrence of such violations as a question of fact.

Issues: Whether a contempt petition under Article 215 is maintainable in the High Court for the alleged violation of guidelines set by the Apex Court during arrest when no prior adjudication has taken place.

Ratio Decidendi: Contempt jurisdiction must be used sparingly to uphold the dignity of courts. Unless it is established by a competent authority that a party committed deliberate and contumacious disobedience of a specific court order, a contempt petition does not directly lie in the High Court. Result : Petition dismissed.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1. The instant contempt petition alleges willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 128, D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, Citizen for Democracy Vs. State of Assam, (1995) 3 SCC 743 and Paranvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and others, (2021) 1 SCC 184, and for violations of orders dated 24.09.2008 in CWP No. 9650 of 2007, dated 27.08.2014 in CWP No. 17431 of 2014, dated 09.02.2022 in CRM-M-43672 of 2021, dated 16.01.2025 in CRWP No. 5521 of 2021.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to registration of FIR No. 59 of 2024, under Sections 186 IPC (221BNS), 332 IPC (121 BNS), 353 IPC (132 BNS), 295-A IPC (299 BNS) and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (Annexure P-1), the petitioners were arrested in violation of the provisions of Section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C and that no check list was prepared. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that they were not produced before the Area Magistrate physically or even virtually prior to the remand. It is also the allegation that the petitioners were handcuffed and were kept in areas without CCTV Coverage and were subjected to custodial treatment contrary to the safeguards mandated by the aforesaid judgments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents is violative of the judgments of the Apex Court and the guidelines issued by this Court from time to time.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there has been no violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court or the guidelines issued by this Court. She further submits there is no finding by the Area Magistrate in this regard. Learned counsel submits that the contempt jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the petitioners and the petitioners can avail remedies available to them in law.

5. Order dated 11.01.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Area Magistrate which reads as under:-

"Accused produced before me being Duty Magistrate. An application for seeking 14 days judicial custody for accused is moved. Heard. Pending investigation accused are remanded to judicial custody till 24.01.2025 and be produced on 24.01.2025 through VC. File be sent back to concerned Ld. Court immediately."

6. The said order nowhere records any violation of the judgments of the Apex Court or the guidelines by this Court. This Court has taken a view in COCP No. 1824 of 2025 and certain other matters that under such circumstances, a contempt petition would not be maintainable. The relevant findings in the said contempt petition are as under:-

10. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court of India issued the following directions :-

"13. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.P.C.;

(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); (3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9431

A contempt petition alleging violation of arrest guidelines under Arnesh Kumar (supra) is not maintainable directly in the High Court unless a judicial or competent authority has already adjudicated upon and established such violation as a question of fact.

Cases Referred (1)