The contempt powers of a court should be exercised with circumspection and due and proper application of mind even at the stage of initiation of such proceedings, the Court said.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that the initiation of contempt of court proceedings cannot be carried out in a routine or casual manner [Soniya Nityanand And Others V. Ashish Wakhlu].
A Bench of Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Rajan Roy emphasised that even at the stage of issuing notice in contempt cases, courts must exercise proper application of mind.
"Issuance of notice in a contempt matter is not a causal or routine procedure. It requires due and proper application of mind to the aforesaid facts and issues. We must keep in mind that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. These proceedings carry a rigor much more than any other judicial proceedings for adjudication of disputes. These proceedings are in exercise of powers of the High Court to punish for its contempt and that of the subordinate courts. Therefore, they should be exercised with circumspection and due and proper application of mind even at the stage of initiation of such proceedings," the Court said.
The Court was dealing with an appeal by the Vice-Chancellor and certain members of the Executive Council (appellants) of King George's Medical University at Lucknow. The appeal was filed against a single judge's decision to implead the appellants in a contempt of court case.
The appellants claimed they had been wrongly impleaded in the civil contempt of court case initiated in 2020 against the University and its office bearers.
The appellants explained that they were not on the Executive Council when the alleged act of contempt took place.
They added that the person who had filed the contempt case in 2020 had sought to implead the appellants only to arm-twist them.
The appellants argued that they were erroneously issued notice in the contempt case by a single judge of the High Court, without first examining if there was any prima facie case of contempt made out against the appellants.
The Division Bench of the High Court found some force in the appellants' arguments.
The Court clarified that it is not expressing any conclusive opinion on the issue, but observed that there did not appear to be any specific allegation of willful contempt by the appellants.
It proceeded to direct the single judge hearing the contempt case to consider discharging the appellants from the contempt case, once an application for the same is filed by the appellants.
Before disposing of the appeal on these terms, the Division Bench also reiterated certain principles to be kept in mind before a court initiates contempt of court proceedings.
Summarising Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the Bench noted that the following pre-requisites should be ensured while issuing notice in a contempt case:
(a) There has to be an order of a court or an undertaking before it;
(b) Such order should have been communicated to the alleged contemnor calling upon him to comply with the same;
(c) There has to be some action or inaction or undertaking which may amount to willful disobedience or flouting of such order or undertaking;
(d) There have to be allegations in the contempt petition or in an application for impleadment mentioning the existence of aforesaid jurisdictional facts/ prerequisites;
(e) The contempt court has to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction about the existence of these jurisdictional facts/ prerequisites, making out a prima facie case of contempt of court.
Further, the Court emphasized that before impleading any party to a contempt case, notice should first be issued to the alleged contemnors. This is so that they may inform the contempt court about the correct facts. This is the general procedure, the Court noted, unless a prima facie case of contempt has been made out from the facts or documents on record.
Advocates Lalta Prasad Misra and Shubham Tripathi appeared for the appellants while advocate Sandeep Kumar Ojha represented the respondent.