Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – ss.12, 13, 19 – On 05.12.2023, the Single Judge of the High Court in a contempt petition held the respondent guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.07.2020 and has committed contempt of the orders of the Court – In light of the same, the Single Judge of the High Court granted time to the respondent to purge the contempt failing which the respondent was directed to file an affidavit stating as to why he should not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – On change of roster, another Single Judge of the High Court was seized of the contempt petition – On 03.07.2024, the Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment and final order, came to the conclusion that there was no willful and deliberate disobedience by the respondent – Thus, the show cause notice issued to the respondent was discharged – Correctness: Held: It is clear that the Single Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and final order dated 03.07.2024 has reviewed the entire order of the Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 – After the order was passed on 05.12.2023, another Single Judge could have only considered whether the respondent had purged the contempt and if not purged the contempt, as to whether he should be punished or not under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – It was not permissible for the Single Judge to have revisited the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not – If the Respondent was of the view that the order passed by the Single Judge dated 05.12.2023 holding him to be guilty of contempt was not correct in law, the only option available to him was to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Having accepted the order dated 05.12.2023, the respondent could not have contended, or for that matter, the Single Judge could not have held that the respondent has not committed contempt of the Court – It is also contrary to the well settled principles of judicial propriety – When one Judge of the same Court has taken a particular view holding the respondent to be guilty of contempt, another Judge could not have come to a finding that the respondent was not guilty of contempt. [Paras 16, 17, 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.