1. Mr.

Vinay Prakash Singh vs Sameer Gehlaut on 15 November, 2019

A bench of Justice Ranjan

No person or institution howsoever powerful, can be permitted to misuse the process of the court"

Gogoi, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said diversion of Fortis Healthcare shares by
Indiabulls led to violation of the court order which had called for maintaining status quo

2. Contempt by a Lawyer-
The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The judge has to
deliver justice in a fearless and impartial manner. He cannot be intimidated in any manner or insulted by hurling abuses

advocate is duty bound to act as per the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court and he plays a vital role in
preservation of the society and justice delivery system.

An advocate has no business to threaten a judge or hurl abuses for judicial order which he has passed. In case of complaint of the
judge, it was open to the advocate to approach concerned higher authorities but there is no licence to any member of the Bar to indulge
in such undignified conduct to lower down the dignity of the court

role of a lawyer is indispensable in justice delivery system and he has to follow the professional ethics and maintain high standards

What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to an intellectual class of the society and as
a member of the noble profession, the expectations from him are accordingly higher. Advocates are held in high esteem in the society

Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate vs Alok Pandey, Cjm on 10 May, 2019

Judges are not "fearful saints" and cannot be intimidated or insulted and they have to be "fearless preachers" to preserve the
independence of judiciary which is necessary for the survival of democracy, the Supreme Court said Friday.

The apex court said this in its judgement upholding the conviction of an advocate for criminal contempt of court for misbehaving and
attempting to assault a chief judicial magistrate in Allahabad in 2012.

3. Contempt in Face of Court/

Section 14
Case name: National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms &
Ors.  v. Union of India & ors.

The case at hand pertains to petition lodged by Shri Mathews Nedumpara, wherein he
alleged that Judges of the Court are wholly unfit to designate persons as Senior Advocates,
as they only designate Judges’ relatives as Senior Advocates.
The accusations and averments made by the Shri Nedumpara were judged to be
contemptuous by the Supreme Court.

In view of the accusations and prayers made by Shri Nedumpapa and the settled law in this
regard, the Bench held that in cases of criminal contempt in the face of the court, it
does not preclude the court from taking recourse to summary proceedings and the
procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for
issuance of notice need not be followed. The Court further observed as under:

 That if lawyers can be bold enough to file writ petitions against judges of a High
Court on observations judicially made by a Judge of the High Court, the very
independence of the judiciary itself comes under threat.
 While referring to the averments made by the Petitioner, the Apex Court opined
that the said advocate has embarked on a course of conduct which is calculated to
defeat the administration of justice in this country.
 The Court also noted that when contempt is committed in the face of the
Court, judges’ hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty of this
Court as well as the administration of justice both demand that contemptuous
behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly.
 The Apex Court while passing it’s order in the case, heavily relied on it’s judgment
in the case of Leila David v. State of Maharashtra[1], where the issue before
the Court was whether contempt in the face of the Court can be dealt with
summarily, without any need of issuing notice to the contemnors, and whether
punishment can be inflicted upon them there and then?

The Supreme Court in Leila David case observed as under:

Although, Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, lays down the procedure to be
followed  in cases of criminal contempt in the face of the court, it does not preclude
the court from taking recourse to summary proceedings  when a deliberate and wilful
contumacious incident takes place in front of their eyes and the public at large, including
Senior Law Officers, such as the Attorney General for India who was then the Solicitor
General of India.
Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act no doubt contemplates issuance of notice and an
opportunity to the contemnors to answer the charges in the notice to satisfy the principles
of natural justice. However,  where an incident of the instant nature takes place
within the presence and sight of the learned Judges, the same amounts to
contempt in the face of the Court and is required to be dealt with at the time of the
incident itself.

4. Section 20 Limitation

Tmt.A.Pushpa vs Thiru. Karunakaran on 7 February, 2019Contempt Action Cannot Be Taken After The
Period Of Limitation Under Sec.20 Contempt Of Courts Act

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Contempt Petition No. 2337 of 2017

Decided On: 18.04.2018

Appellants: S. Ranganathan
Vs.
Respondent: Sabeetha and Ors

Held- One year limitation period applicable for suo-motu contempt proceedings as well

5. Latest Judgments

Reliance Communication Limited vs State Bank Of India on 20 February, 2019

WHAT IS RCom-ERICSSON CASE

n February 13, the apex court reserved its judgement when Ericsson India alleged that the Reliance
Group has money to invest in the Rafale jet deal but was unable to clear its Rs 550 crore dues, a charge
vehemently denied by the Anil Ambani-led company.
Ambani told the top court that with the failure of its assets sale deal with elder brother Mukesh
Ambani-led Reliance Jio, his company has entered insolvency proceedings and is not in control of the
funds.
RCom told the court they had tried to move "heaven and earth" to ensure Ericsson gets its due but was
unable to do so due to failure of the assets sale deal with Jio.
The apex court had given one last opportunity to RCom on October 23 last year for clearing the
settlement amount and had asked it to clear dues by December 15, 2018, saying delayed payment
would attract an interest of 12 per cent per annum.
he Supreme Court on Wednesday held Anil Ambani's Reliance Communication (RCom) guilty of
contempt of court. The Supreme Court said three Reliance companies had no intentions to adhere to the
instructions given by it.
The court also rejected an unconditional apology submitted by Reliance Communications. The
Supreme Court ordered Reliance Communications to pay Rs 453 crores to Ericsson, in addition to the
Rs 118 crores that it was supposed to pay

Bombay High Court

High Court On Its Own Motion vs Ketan Tirodkar on 11 October, 2018
The Bombay High Court on Thursday sentenced a former journalist, Ketan Tirodkar, to three
months in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 for criminal contempt of court, reported Live Law.

The court took suo motu cognisance of Tirodkar’s Facebook posts, in which he accused sitting and
retired judges of the court of “selling justice” at “rates which bail orders and anticipatory bail
orders can be obtained”, according to The Indian Express. He termed some retired judges as
“middlemen” and accused retired and sitting judges of being “land grabbers”.

Delhi High Court

Justice C.S. Karnan vs The Honourable Supreme Court Of ... on 23 August, 2017
New Delhi, Aug 23 (PTI) The Delhi High Court today dismissed a plea of jailed former Calcutta High
Court judge C S Karnan challenging the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Courts Act.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar said the petition, challenging
the Supreme Courts decision holding him in contempt and sending him to jail for six months, was
"completely misdirected and untenable".
"The writ petition laying such challenge before us is misconceived for the same reason and has to be
rejected," it said.
The bench further said the constitutionality of the contempt law cannot be challenged in the instant case
as the apex court "had not exercised power under the Contempt of Courts Act but invoked its inherent
jurisdiction under Article 129 (to initiate matters on its own) of the Constitution".
The high court in its 30-page verdict also said that if the apex courts Registrar had refused to receive
Karnans petition against the May 9 decision holding him in contempt, then he could have appealed
against this as provided in the Supreme Court Rules.
"The petitioner, therefore, had an efficacious alternate remedy available to him by way of an appeal
prescribed under the Rules and has admittedly failed to invoke the same," it said.
 Karnans lawyer, Mathews J Nedumpara, had argued before the high court that the May 9 order was
passed without following the principles of natural justice.
The high court rejected this contention, saying that "the record establishes that the petitioner was given
more than ample opportunity to file his response".
ADVERTISEMENT
"He was afforded at least three opportunities to tender his response, on February 8, March 31 as well as
on May 1. Instead of availing the opportunities and doing so (tender his response), the petitioner
resorted to passing orders against judges of the Supreme Court and making further contumacious
statements to the press, as have been noted in the order of May 1," the bench said.
The high court also said that "the petitioner was served with the notice to show cause. He was given
repeated and adequate opportunity to present his defence.
"The petitioners communications, orders and conduct establish that he had full knowledge of the orders
of the court, proceedings as well as the material against him."
The bench said the instant issue did not pertain to an illiterate or impoverished person, but an individual
who was "legally trained" and was "an adjudicator holding a constitutional position".
"The submission that principles of natural justice were not complied with is clearly not borne out from
the record," it added.
Nedumpara had also argued that Karnan was under no legal obligation to file a response and was
entitled to maintain silence.
To this, the high court has said, "Unfortunately, the petitioner did not remain silent."
The bench noted that Karnan, instead of filing a response before the court, chose to make public
declarations of his defence and issued orders against the proceedings before the apex court. "In view of
the above discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed," it said. PTI
HMP PPS SJK ARC

If a person fails to do something which

is impossible, he cannot be held guilty
of contempt
CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT

Published on September 21, 2016By Prachi Bhardwaj

Leave a comment

  

  
  

Supreme Court: In the case where the appellant was unable to produce documents before the Court as the same
were destroyed due to natural calamity, the 3-judge bench of A.R. Dave, U.U. Lalit and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ,
held that the appellant was not guilty of committing contempt of court as there was no willful breach of the
undertaking given to the court. The Court said that It would not be fair on the part of a court to give a direction
to do something which is impossible and if a person has been asked to do something which is impossible and if
he fails to do so, he cannot be held guilty of contempt.
Explaining the definition of ‘civil contempt’, the Court held that so as to hold somebody guilty of contempt of
court, the concerned person must have willfully disobeyed any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or any
other process of a court or should have willfully committed breach of an undertaking given to a court. Having
regard to the facts of the case where the appellant’s house was badly hit by the cyclone in the year 1999, as a
result of which his house was submerged into the flood water consequent to that it was collapsed as his house
was built up of mud and covered with asbestos sheets resulting most of their belongings were vanished, the
Court said that it is crystal clear that the appellant had no intention of committing breach of the undertaking
given to the court and that it was physically impossible for the appellant to produce the documents.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court and had sentenced simple
imprisonment for one week and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Disagreeing with the order of the High Court, the Court
said that It is deplorable that the appellant has been held guilty and has also undergone the sentence imposed by
the High Court. [Gyani Chand v. State of A.P., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 961, decided on 20.09.2016]

6. International Prespective

LINK- austinsolon.com/2018/10/19/person-is-guilty-of-scandalising-contempt-even-if-there-was-no-intention-to-
scandalise-the-court-singapore-sc-upholds-constitutional-validity-of-contempt-law/

Singapore CourtPerson Is Guilty Of Scandalising Contempt Even If There Was No Intention To Scandalise The Court:
Singapore SC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Cont
The Supreme Court of Singapore recently upheld the constitutionality of section 3(1)(a)of the Administration of
Justice (Protection) Act, 2016.

7. Mainataiablity

U’khand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” Against Sitting Judge As Not Maintainable, Unhappy With AG’s
Opinion

https://www.livelaw.in/tag/contempt-of-court//page-2

8. DEFENCES / Contempt of Court:

No Contempt Proceedings if
Charges have not been Framed

In this recent case the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief
Justice Dipak Misra has categorically held that there  cannot be any contempt
proceedings against the contemnor if formal charges had not been framed.

Case name: R.S. Sehrawat v. Rajeev Malhotra & ors.

In the case, the appellant assailed the conviction orders passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Delhi against the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High
Court in the case convicted the appellant on the ground that the acts of the appellant tended
to substantially interfere with the due course of justice and amounted to committing criminal
contempt of court for having filed incorrect affidavit.

The Supreme Court in the case allowed the appeal noting that the appellant was not served
with any charges muchless specific charge which he was expected to meet.
 The Supreme Court in the case while acquitting the appellant relied on its judgment in the
case of Sahdeo Alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, wherein the
Court held that contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the same standard of
proof is required in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is to
be informed as to what is the charge, he has to meet. Thus, specific charge has to be
framed in precision.

9. Defences
Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Dsp Jayant Kashmiri & Ors on 9 March, 2017

Hypersensitivity of courts - ought not lead to initiation of contempt

41. Several judicial precedents are brought to our notice wherein the Supreme Court and the High Courts
have commented upon unwarranted hypersensitivity and undue peevishness of courts leading to initiation
of contempt of court action against parties. 

10. Article 215

Article 215 does not give power to High

Court to punish for contempt of
Supreme Court
CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT

Published on January 3, 2017By Prachi Bhardwaj

Leave a comment

  

  

  


Supreme Court: Holding that the power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215
of the Constitution does not extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court, the Court said that such a
power has never been recognised as an attribute of a court of record nor has the same been specifically
conferred upon the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution.
In the present case, a suo motu contempt proceedings was initiated by the High Court of Delhi in the light of a
story that appeared in ‘Mid Day’ in its issue dated 2nd May, 2007 under the title “Injustice” that highlighted the
alleged misuse of the official residence of Justice Sabharwal who demitted office as Chief Justice of India on
13th January, 2007 and another story stating that Justice Sabharwal had by reason of the orders passed by the
bench benefitted the partnership business of his sons in real estate development in and around Delhi.
The Court noticed that no part of the publications referred to the High Court of Delhi or any other High Court
for that matter. The publications did not refer to any Judge or any order of any Court subordinate to the High
Court of Delhi. Hence, only Supreme Court had power to initiate contempt proceedings in the matter. It was
held that if Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish
for its contempt, there is no question of a Court subordinate to the Supreme Court doing so.
It was further explained by the bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ and A.M. Khanwilkar, J that a priori if the power to
punish under Article 215 is limited to the contempt of the High Court or courts subordinate to the High Court,
there was no way the High Court could justify invoking that power to punish for the contempt of a superior
court. That is particularly so when the superior court’s power to punish for its contempt has been in no uncertain
terms recognised by Article 129 of the Constitution. The availability of the power under Article 129 and its
plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could never have been intended to empower the High Courts to
punish for the contempt of the Supreme Court. [Vitusah Oberoi v. Court of its own motion, 2017 SCC OnLine
SC 1, decided on 02.01.2017]

10. Criminal Contempt

Refusal To Answer Court

Queries Isn’t Criminal
Contempt
November 17, 2016

The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kapoor & Ors vs. Court on its Motion, has observed that

a litigant refusing to answer a question put to him by the Court does not constitute

criminal contempt of Court. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave, Justice

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice AM Khanwilkar opined so while setting aside a Delhi

High Court order in suo motu contempt proceedings against Kuldeep Kapoor and Ashok

Kumar.