Supreme Court Upholds Contempt Conviction of Former Commissioner of Endowments for Wilful Disregard of High Court Precedent. Quasi-Judicial Authority's False Claim of Sub Judice and Deliberate Non-Following of Binding Orissa High Court Decision Under Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act Constitutes Contempt of Court.

Case Note & Summary

The case arose from contempt proceedings against the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, who was a member of the Superior Judicial Service and functioned as a quasi-judicial authority under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. He was subject to the superintendence of the Orissa High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondent Bhimsen Dixit was the person in charge of two deities in village Sanabagalpur and had objected to the appointment of an interim trustee under Section 27 of the Act. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments took action under Section 27 for appointing an interim trustee of the deities. The respondent raised an objection under Section 41 that the Act did not apply because the deities were consecrated under a private endowment made by him. On 26 July 1967, the Additional Assistant Commissioner rejected the objection without holding any inquiry under Section 41, holding that prima facie there was a public endowment, and did not appoint the objector as trustee. The respondent filed a revision under Section 9 before the appellant, who was then Commissioner. During the intervening period, the Orissa High Court decided Bhramarbar Santra and others v. State of Orissa and others, I.L.R. 1970 Cuttack 54, holding that the Assistant Commissioner cannot appoint an interim trustee under Section 27 until he has held an inquiry under Section 41 and found that there was no hereditary trustee. At the hearing of the revision, this decision was cited before the appellant, but he dismissed the revision on 19 January 1970, distinguishing the case and adding the sentence: 'Further, against the order we have moved the Supreme Court, and as such, the matter can be safely deemed to be subjudice.' The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which issued a contempt notice. The High Court found the appellant guilty of contempt, admonished him in open court, and directed him to pay Rs 300 as costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant's non-following of the High Court's decision and the sub judice sentence amounted to contempt of court, and whether a bona fide but mistaken act of distinguishing a binding precedent could be contempt. The appellant argued that the sentence neither interfered with the administration of justice nor scandalised the High Court, and that he had bona fide distinguished the case. He claimed that since a petition for certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, the point of law was sub judice, and only the Supreme Court's decision would be binding. The State argued that absence of precedent should not preclude a finding of contempt if the principles applied, and that the appellant's conduct was deliberate and mala fide. The Supreme Court observed that contempt of court includes disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity, and conduct tending to bring the authority of the court into disrepute. It noted that where an inferior court disobeys a superior court's order, it commits contempt because the disobedience undermines public respect for the superior court. The Court found that on the date of the appellant's order, nothing was pending in the Supreme Court; only a petition for certificate to appeal was pending in the High Court. Thus the appellant made a wrong statement of fact. The use of the pronoun 'we' indicated that the appellant identified himself as a litigant and did not observe due detachment as a quasi-judicial authority. Considering the appellant's 23 years of judicial experience, the Court could not believe he honestly thought the binding character of the High Court decision disappeared upon filing a certificate petition. The appellant deliberately avoided following the High Court decision by giving wrong and illegitimate reasons; his conduct was clearly mala fide. The Court held that under Article 227, the High Court had power of superintendence over the appellant, and the decisions of the High Court were binding on him. Not following the previous decision was calculated to create confusion in the administration of law and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. A bona fide but mistaken distinguishing of a binding precedent would not amount to contempt, but that was not the case here. The Court referred to East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338 for principles. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the High Court's finding of contempt, and upheld the admonishment and costs of Rs 300 imposed on the appellant. The decision placed emphasis on judicial discipline and the binding nature of High Court precedents on subordinate tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's finding of contempt. It agreed that the appellant deliberately avoided following the High Court's decision by giving wrong and illegitimate reasons; the sentence contained a wrong statement of fact and the use of 'we' showed lack of detachment. The Court held that a bona fide but mistaken distinguishing of a binding precedent would not amount to contempt, but here the conduct was clearly mala fide. The High Court had admonished the appellant in open court and directed payment of Rs 300 as costs.

Law Points