Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a criminal appeal preferred under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order of the Orissa High Court refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. The appellant, a member of the Orissa Judicial Service, had been suspended and disciplinary proceedings initiated. He made representations to the Governor containing statements that the High Court considered scandalous and contemptuous, leading to suo motu contempt proceedings and eventual conviction. While disciplinary inquiry was pending, the appellant filed a motion before the Full Bench alleging that the Chief Justice and other Judges had committed criminal contempt by prejudging issues in the contempt proceeding through their administrative decisions in the disciplinary inquiry. The Full Bench declined to take action, holding there was no contempt and the appellant lacked the required consent of the Advocate General under Section 15(1). The appellant then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 19(1). The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The Court examined the scope of Section 19(1) and the scheme of the Act. It observed that prior to the 1971 Act, even a person punished for criminal contempt had no right of appeal; Section 19(1) introduced a right of appeal only from any order or decision of a High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Court explained that the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a proceeding, whether suo motu or on a motion or reference. When a motion or reference is made, the Court first decides whether to initiate proceedings; this preliminary decision is not an exercise of jurisdiction to punish. If the Court rejects the motion and declines to initiate a proceeding, it refuses to assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and thus such an order is not appealable under Section 19(1). However, the Court clarified that the aggrieved person can always approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 by special leave petition, and the Supreme Court has unfettered power to interfere if the interests of justice require. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of maintainability.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Appeal - Section 19(1) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Only orders or decisions in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt are appealable; an order declining to initiate contempt proceedings is not such an order - High Court had rejected appellant's motion for contempt against judges on grounds no contempt and lack of Advocate General consent - Held that no appeal lies against refusal to take action on motion under Section 19(1).
B) Contempt of Court - Initiation of Proceedings - Section 19(1), Section 20 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with initiation of proceeding, whether suo motu or on motion/reference; consideration of motion or reference to decide whether to initiate is preliminary and not exercise of jurisdiction to punish - Court may decline to take cognizance and initiate proceeding; such refusal means court never assumed jurisdiction to punish - Held that terminus a quo for limitation under Section 20 is date of initiation of proceeding.
C) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Article 136 Constitution of India - Even if no appeal under Section 19(1), aggrieved party can approach Supreme Court under Article 136; power to interfere with High Court order refusing contempt action is unfettered - Held that interests of administration of justice may warrant interference.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal lies under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order of the High Court declining to initiate contempt proceedings on a motion made by a person with consent of Advocate General.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Supreme Court held that order of High Court refusing to initiate contempt proceedings is not appealable under Section 19(1); remedy is under Article 136 by special leave petition.
Law Points
- Appeal under Section 19(1) lies only from order or decision in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt
- exercise of jurisdiction commences with initiation of proceeding
- rejection of motion or reference declining to initiate is not exercise of jurisdiction to punish
- remedy is under Article 136 by special leave petition
- power of Supreme Court under Article 136 unfettered
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1973
P.N. Bhagwati, D.G. Palekar, V.R. Krishna Iyer
1974 AIR 2255, 1975 SCR (1) 524, 1975 SCC (3) 535
Baradakanta Mishra (in person), F.S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor-General of India, Vinoo Bhagat
Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mishra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against High Court order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to appeal against the High Court's refusal to take action on his motion for initiating contempt against the Chief Justice and other Judges.
Filing Reason
Appellant believed that the Chief Justice and other Judges committed criminal contempt by prejudging issues in a pending contempt proceeding through their administrative decisions in a disciplinary inquiry.
Previous Decisions
High Court Full Bench declined to take action on contempt motion, holding no contempt and lack of Advocate General consent under Section 15(1). Earlier, appellant was convicted for contempt and sentenced to two months simple imprisonment.
Issues
Whether an order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings is appealable under Section 19(1) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Whether remedy is available under Article 136 of the Constitution
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that even if High Court declined to take action on motion, it was still a decision in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt and therefore appealable under plain terms of Section 19(1).
Respondent raised preliminary objection that no appeal lay under Section 19(1) against refusal to take action.
Ratio Decidendi
The exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences only when the court initiates a proceeding for contempt; rejecting a motion or reference and declining to initiate a proceeding is not a decision in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, hence no appeal under Section 19(1).
Judgment Excerpts
The exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a proceeding for contempt. whether suo motu or on a motion or a, reference. That is why the terminus a quo for The period of limitation provided in Section 20 is the date when the proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court.
Where the court rejects a motion or reference and declines to initiate a proceeding for contempt, it refuses to assume or exercise jurisdiction lo punish for contempt. and such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
Such a decision would not therefore fall within the opening words of Section 19(1) and no appeal would lie against it as of right under that provision.
Though no appeal lies under Section 19(1) as of right, the Advocate-General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General who has moved the High Court, can always come to this Court by a petition for special leave to appeal and the power of this Court to interfere with such order or decision in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 is unfettered.
Procedural History
Appellant, member of Orissa Judicial Service, promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 31 July 1968. Suspended by High Court on 30 March 1972 and charge-sheeted on 29 April 1972. Appellant appealed to Governor against suspension; High Court withheld appeal. Appellant directly sent representation to Governor on 14 May 1972 with copy to Registrar; representation contained statements alleged to be contemptuous. High Court suo motu issued contempt notice on 3 July 1972 (Criminal Misc. Case No. 8 of 1972). Appellant filed special leave petition to Supreme Court against rejection of preliminary issue by Full Bench; petition contained further alleged contemptuous statements; Supreme Court rejected petition; High Court issued supplementary notice on 5 January 1973. Full Bench convicted appellant of contempt on 5 February 1973, sentencing to two months simple imprisonment. Disciplinary inquiry entrusted to single judge, report found appellant guilty except charge 4(a); High Court after hearing reduced appellant to Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). Appellant then moved Full Bench for initiating contempt against Chief Justice and other judges; Full Bench declined by order dated 13 February 1973, holding no contempt and lack of Advocate General consent under Section 15(1). Appellant filed appeal to Supreme Court under Section 19(1); respondent raised preliminary objection; Supreme Court dismissed appeal on 21 June 1974.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 15(1), Section 19(1), Section 20
- Constitution of India: Article 136
