Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a criminal appeal by special leave against an order of the Orissa High Court convicting the appellant, an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Orissa, for contempt of court. The appellant had circulated an endorsement dated January 19, 1955, to the District Magistrates of the Northern Division of Orissa, enclosing copies of opinions of the Legal Remembrancer and Advocate General regarding the interpretation of Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The endorsement stated that the Law Department was of the view that no special authorization was necessary to empower magistrates to take cognizance under Section 20, contrary to an earlier Orissa High Court decision reported in AIR 1951 Orissa 40, and directed that this view 'be followed until the matter is carried to the High Court in some case, so that the confusion created by the Orissa High Court decision might be set at rest.' The High Court, upon noticing this endorsement, initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant and the Legal Remembrancer. Both showed cause and tendered apologies. The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer but convicted the appellant, admonished him, and directed him to pay the costs of the proceedings. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the factual background: the point on which the Legal Remembrancer's opinion was sought was whether a magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate to take cognizance of offences under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be regarded as a magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate as contemplated by Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The Orissa High Court had followed the decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab, holding that authorisation was necessary. That decision had been dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembrancer's note was described by the High Court as 'something ambiguous and did not deal with all questions—consequential and ancillary'. Despite this, the appellant in his endorsement gave a direction to the magistrates to ignore the decision of the High Court even though it was binding on them. The Supreme Court held that such a direction was a flagrant interference with the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt of court. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction, admonition, and liability for costs. The decision reinforces the principle that subordinate authorities cannot be instructed to disregard binding judicial pronouncements, as doing so undermines the rule of law and the authority of the courts.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Circular Directing Ignoring of High Court Decision - Flagrant Interference with Administration of Justice - Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, Section 20; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 190 - The appellant, an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, circulated an endorsement to District Magistrates of Northern Division, Orissa, enclosing opinions of the Legal Remembrancer and Advocate General, and directed that no special authorization was necessary to empower magistrates to take cognizance under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, contrary to an Orissa High Court decision reported in AIR 1951 Orissa 40, until the matter was carried to the High Court. The Orissa High Court found the appellant guilty of contempt, admonished him, and directed payment of costs, while absolving the Legal Remembrancer. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that giving a direction to magistrates to ignore a binding High Court decision is a flagrant interference with the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt of court. Held that the appeal must be dismissed and the appellant's contempt conviction upheld. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a circular issued by an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue directing District Magistrates to follow a procedure contrary to a binding High Court decision until the matter is carried to the High Court constitutes contempt of court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Orissa High Court's order convicting the appellant of contempt of court, admonishing him, and directing him to pay costs. The Court held that giving a direction to magistrates to ignore a binding High Court decision is a flagrant interference with the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt of court.
Law Points
- A government officer cannot issue directions to subordinate magistrates to ignore a binding High Court decision
- such direction amounts to flagrant interference with administration of justice and clear contempt of court.
