Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 15.7.89, which found the appellant guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant, T. Deen Dayal, had contested the biennial election to the Rajya Sabha held in 1984 and filed Election Petition No.1/84 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The election petition was being tried by Justice Upendralal Waghray. During the hearing, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking transfer of the election petition from Justice Waghray to another judge, alleging that the judge was under the evil influence of the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, N.T. Rama Rao, because of his relative Mr. Shravan Kumar, IAS, Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister, who was allegedly behind a fraud concerning the resignation of the first respondent from the A.P. Public Service Commission. The learned judge, viewing these allegations as baseless and reckless, passed an order on 16.4.85 holding that the allegations amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act and initiated contempt proceedings. The matter was eventually placed before a Division Bench after the appellant insisted that criminal contempt required a Division Bench. The appellant was irregular in appearing before the court, leading first to a bailable warrant on 9.6.87 and later a non-bailable warrant. The appellant also moved the Supreme Court for early disposal, which directed the High Court to dispose of the contempt petition within six weeks from 22.7.88, but the case was ultimately heard on 3rd and 4th July, 1989. Before the High Court, the appellant appeared in person and raised several contentions: that the judge acted only as an 'authority' under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and not as a court, thus lacking jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings; that initiation violated Section 13 of the Act; that the order of Justice P.A. Choudhary dated 1.7.86 defeated the earlier order; that proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20; that the judge partially admitted allegations; and that the order dated 25.4.85 discharged him. The High Court rejected all contentions, holding that Article 329(b) did not preclude Parliament from conferring jurisdiction on the High Court under Section 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to try election petitions, and that the expression 'authority' was not defined in Article 366 or the General Clauses Act, 1897. It also held that Section 20 limitation applies only to initiation, not conclusion, and that the proceedings were under Section 15, not Section 14. The High Court concluded that the allegations constituted criminal contempt under sub-clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 2(c), as they scandalized the court and interfered with the due course of justice. It noted that the appellant had not offered any apology or regret and had aggravated the contempt by alleging in the counter affidavit that the judge had received a bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs. The High Court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months, suspended for two weeks to enable appeal. In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the High Court's delay beyond the time fixed by the Supreme Court nullified the order and that the Chief Justice had not authorized the Division Bench. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions, observing that delay was partly caused by the appellant's own non-appearance, which necessitated bailable and non-bailable warrants, and that the Chief Justice constitutes Benches. The appellant also reiterated the jurisdiction argument under Article 329-A, but the Supreme Court noted the High Court had dealt with it in detail and quoted Section 80-A. The final outcome of the appeal is not provided in the available text.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the Court and Interference with Judicial Proceedings - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c) - The appellant, in a transfer application in an election petition, alleged that the presiding judge was under the evil influence of the Chief Minister and his relative, and later in the counter affidavit alleged that the judge received a bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs; the High Court found these baseless and reckless allegations constituted criminal contempt under sub-clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of Section 2(c), as they scandalized the court and interfered with due course of justice - Held that the contemnor deserved severe punishment and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months. B) Constitutional Law - Election Petitions - Jurisdiction of High Court - Constitution of India, Article 329(b) and Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 80-A - The appellant contended that a judge trying an election petition acts as an 'authority' under Article 329(b) and not as a court, thus lacking jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings; the High Court held that Article 329(b) does not preclude Parliament from conferring jurisdiction on a High Court under Section 80-A to try election petitions, and the expression 'authority' is not defined in Article 366 or General Clauses Act, 1897 - Held that the High Court acts as a court for purposes of contempt jurisdiction. C) Contempt of Court - Limitation - Initiation versus Conclusion - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 20 - The appellant argued that proceedings were barred by limitation; the High Court held that Section 20 prescribes limitation for initiation of contempt proceedings, not for their conclusion - Held that the proceedings were not barred. D) Contempt of Court - Procedure - Proceedings under Section 14 versus Section 15 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 14, 15 - The appellant contended that the order dated 25.4.85 discharged him and that proceedings could not continue; the High Court found this contention based on misreading, as the proceedings were not under Section 14 but under Section 15, and the appellant had clear notice of the charge - Held that the initiation by the single judge and reference to Division Bench was proper. E) Contempt of Court - Jurisdiction and Authorization of Bench - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 15 - The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the Chief Justice had not authorized the Division Bench to hear the contempt application; the Supreme Court rejected this, stating it is a known fact that the Chief Justice constitutes Benches and the application would not have been posted without such authorization. F) Contempt of Court - Delay Caused by Contemnor - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 19 - The appellant contended that the High Court's disposal beyond the time fixed by the Supreme Court nullified the order; the Supreme Court rejected this, noting delay was partly due to appellant's non-appearance which compelled issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants - Held that appellant cannot complain of delay caused by his own conduct. G) Contempt of Court - Defence Under Section 13 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 13 - The appellant contended initiation violated Section 13; the High Court held that the averment in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit was extremely scandalous and compounded the gravity of allegations, not a legal or factual defence to the charge - Held that no valid defence under Section 13 was made out.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court judge trying an election petition acted as an 'authority' under Article 329(b) and not as a court, thereby lacking jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings; whether the allegations made by the appellant constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; whether the proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 20; whether the single judge's order of initiation was valid and whether the Division Bench was duly authorized; whether non-compliance with Supreme Court's earlier time directions vitiated the contempt proceedings
Final Decision
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions regarding non-compliance with its earlier orders and lack of authorization of the Division Bench. The final order on the appeal is not available in the provided text.
Law Points
- Criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971 includes scandalising the court and interfering with judicial proceedings
- High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 80-A of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 acts as a court and not merely as an authority under Article 329(b) of Constitution
- Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act prescribes limitation for initiation
- not conclusion of proceedings
- proceedings under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act can be initiated on judge's reference
- not under Section 14
- contemnor cannot challenge contempt proceedings on ground of delay caused by his own non-appearance
