Case Note & Summary
The criminal contempt petition was filed by Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Wipro Limited, and Azim Hasham Premji (complainants) against India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd. and its representatives R. Subramanian and P. Sadanand (accused) alleging that the accused had filed multiple frivolous proceedings on the same cause of action, thereby abusing the judicial process and interfering with the administration of justice. Earlier, a single judge of the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.172/2021 had recorded a finding that the accused was indulging in forum shopping, which amounted to criminal contempt. This finding was upheld by a division bench in W.A.No.307/2021, which also imposed exemplary costs. Before the contempt case could be tried, the Supreme Court, in an appeal between the same parties, passed an order dated 2 December 2021 laying down specific norms for the conduct of these proceedings. The Supreme Court directed that no further interlocutory applications would be entertained, that there would be no trial, and that each side would be granted half an hour for oral submissions. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, proceeded to frame charges against accused Nos. 2 and 3 on 23 December 2021. The charges detailed that the accused had filed repeated frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, and other proceedings, had played a dual role, and had suppressed material facts, all of which amounted to abuse of process and criminal contempt under Section 2(c) punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty. In compliance with the Supreme Court’s binding direction, the court waived the requirement of a full trial under Rule 10(vi) of the Karnataka High Court (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, and took up the matter for hearing on merits. The court heard oral arguments from senior counsel for the complainants and the accused. The matter was then reserved for orders, and the judgment was pronounced on 14 January 2022.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court – Criminal Contempt – Forum Shopping and Abuse of Process – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 2(c), 12 – The coordinate Bench had observed that filing multiple writ petitions on the very same cause of action amounts to forum shopping and constitutes criminal contempt; the Division Bench upheld this finding and imposed exemplary costs. The present court took cognizance of such conduct and framed charges against the accused for interfering with the administration of justice (Paras 2, 3, 5). B) Contempt of Court – Procedure – Framing of Charge – The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Rule 10(vi) – The court framed detailed charges against accused Nos. 2 and 3 for filing repeated frivolous proceedings, playing dual roles, and suppressing facts, thereby abusing the process of law and rendering them liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Both accused pleaded not guilty, but the Supreme Court’s subsequent order dispensed with the trial phase (Paras 5, 6, 10, 13). C) Supreme Court Directions – Binding Precedent – Constitution of India, Article 141 – The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177-1170/2021 laid down six norms governing the contempt proceedings, including that no further interlocutory applications would be entertained, no trial would be held, and each side would get half an hour for oral submissions. The High Court held that these directions are binding and compliance with Rule 10(vi) was waived (Paras 7, 8). D) Contempt of Court – Criminal Contempt – Abuse of Judicial Process – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 2(c), 12 – The court observed that the accused’s conduct of filing frivolous cases despite repeated dismissals and judicial warnings amounted to a daring ride on the court and a mockery of judicial process, thereby squarely falling within the definition of criminal contempt. The Supreme Court’s norms were applied to proceed with disposal on merits (Paras 5, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused persons are guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for filing repeated frivolous litigations and abusing the judicial process, and whether the proceedings should continue without a full trial as per the Supreme Court's binding norms.
Law Points
- Filing repeated frivolous petitions on the same cause of action amounts to criminal contempt
- Forum shopping constitutes abuse of process and interferes with administration of justice
- Supreme Court's binding directions under Article 141 of the Constitution
- Section 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971 attract liability for such conduct
- Procedural rule for trial in contempt cases may be dispensed with if Supreme Court orders so
