ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
========================
W.A.No.6 of 2021
(Arising out of the interim order
dt.08.12.2020 in Contempt Case No.2615
of 2019 in W.P.(C)No.25089 of 2019)
========================
Dated this the 07th day of January, 2021
ORDER
Heard Sri K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, on behalf of the appellants, Sri S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri Roshen D.Alexander, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, instructed by Sri Suvin R.Menon, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), for and on behalf of the Union Government. After hearing the counsel appearing on either side, we are of the opinion that the intra-court appeal needs to be heard in detail on the issues that have been posed before us, as it deserves consideration in depth. One of the main issues which has been raised in the appeal is whether directions can be issued by a Single Judge, in a contempt petition in view of the prescriptions in the 2nd proviso to Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. Going by the Rules, if the learned Single Judge after W.A.No.6 of 2021 2 conducting a preliminary enquiry in the matter, finds that a prima facie case has been made out and unconditional apology is not tendered by the respondent and accepted by the Court, the Judge may direct that the matter to be posted before the Division Bench dealing with contempt matters. Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court Rules along with its three provisos reads as follows:-
"6. Taking cognizance.- Every proceeding for contempt shall be dealt with by a Bench of not less than two Judges:
Provided that a proceedings under Section 14 of the Act shall be dealt with by the Judge or Judges, in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed and in accordance with the provisions thereof:
Provided further that where civil contempt is alleged in respect of the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Single Judge, the matter shall be posted before that Judge who shall hold the preliminary enquiry in the matter. The Judge, if satisfied that no prima facie has been made out, or it is not expedient to proceed with the matter, may dismiss the petition. If a prima facie case is made out and unconditional apology is not tendered by the respondent and accepted by the Court, the Judge may direct that the matter be posted before the Bench dealing with contempt matters:
Provided that where the Judge concerned is not available, the Chief Justice may direct the application be posted before some other Judge for orders." (emphasis supplied)
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submits that the stage of Rule 6 has not yet reached and it is well within the powers of the Single Judge to issue orders for purging the contempt. According to the learned W.A.No.6 of 2021 3 State Attorney appearing for the appellant, such a power is not available to the Single Judge, whose powers are clearly spelt out in Rule 6. We are also called upon to consider whether the power of a learned Single Judge extends to pass orders which may be beyond the directions that have been issued in the judgment from which the contempt petition arises. We feel that, the question whether the learned Single Judge will have jurisdiction in the nature of the order passed at this stage of the proceedings needs detailed examination. We say so, having regard to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Vasudeva v.
M.George Ravishekaran and others, reported in [2014(3) SCC 373] [paragraph 19 thereof], wherein Their Lordships held that the Courts must not travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. It was further held that only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. We find from the judgment in W.P. (C)No.25089/2019 that the directions therein were as follows : W.A.No.6 of 2021 4 "(i) The first respondent shall ensure public order, peace and tranquility in the locality of the Church forthwith, if necessary, by deploying the provisions of Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(ii) The first respondent shall, thereafter, take over the Church, its precincts and all its movables after removing all persons squatting inside the Church premises and its compound and shall make arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the Church, its precincts and movables.
(iii) When the first respondent is satisfied thereafter that the situation prevailing in the area is conducive so as to enable the petitioner, who is the Vicar of the Church, to conduct religious ceremonies in the Church, the Church, its precincts and movables shall be handed over to the petitioner for management.
(iv) In the meanwhile, if the body of any parishioner is to be buried, there shall be no impediment for the same and the religious services required for the same shall be rendered by the petitioner.
(v) Once the Church and its precincts are handed over to the petitioner, he shall be extended necessary police aid for conducting religious ceremonies in the Church.
(vi) If any person creates any law and order situation or obstructs the religious services in the Church, the Police shall forthwith arrest and remove him.
(vii) Necessary contingent of Police shall remain in the premises of the Church until peace and harmony is attained and the petitioner would be in a position to manage the affairs of the Church."
4. As per the final judgment in the W.P.(C), the directions are issued to the State Authorities and State Police Authorities to ensure that peace and harmony is maintained and to comply with the directions which would require the handing over of the Church premises to the petitioner in the writ petition. The Union of India was not a party to the original proceedings W.A.No.6 of 2021 5 and there were no directions issued to them in the writ petition. In the impugned order dated 08.12.2020 in the Contempt Case, the learned Single Judge has directed that, if the directions issued by the Court are not complied with on or before 08.01.2021 by the State Authorities and the State Police Authorities, then the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) authorities (which is a Central Police Force), shall take over the Church, its precincts and all its movables after removing all persons squatting inside the Church premises and its compound and hold the same under his control, until further orders. The direction is seen to have been issued by invoking the inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution. The question whether such inherent powers can be invoked by the learned Single Judge, in view of the 2 nd proviso to Rule 6 has to be examined particularly in the light of the dictum in Sudhir Vasudeva (supra). This we would now say so, prima facie, as the impugned direction given on 08.12.2020 in the Contempt Petition directing the CRPF authorities, is not contained in the judgment in the Writ Petition (Civil) from which the Contempt Case has arisen.
5. The learned Judge has observed in Paragraph 8 of the impugned order that the learned Assistant Solicitor General had W.A.No.6 of 2021 6 submitted that the Central Police Force will extend aid to the Court for implementing the order. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, he had appeared in the matter, when his presence was directed by the Court, and had submitted that the question of grant of police protection was a State subject and the Central Police Forces had no role in the matter, unless there is a request made by the State Government in that regard. That he further submitted before the learned Single Judge that when a specific query was put to him whether assistance will be rendered if the Court directs, he had answered in the affirmative. He however submits that that stand of the Union Government is that it was a matter within the realm of the State Authorities and not a matter in which the Central Police Force can exercise jurisdiction in the absence of a specific request from the State Government. He further submitted that the stand of the Central Government is that harmony and peace between the two factions should be ensured which is also clear from the special interest taken by the Hon'ble Prime Minister in the matter to bring peace and harmony. The learned State Attorney appearing for the appellant also submitted that affidavits had been filed in the case by the Additional Chief Secretary and the District Collector, pointing out W.A.No.6 of 2021 7 the reasons for the delay in compliance with the judgment in the W.P.(C) and pointing out that the Hon'ble Chief Minister has convened meetings of the Orthodox and Jacobite factions on several days in an attempt to arrive at an amicable solution. The Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent however, points out that the minutes of the meeting will not reveal any discussions on the specific issue involved in this case.
6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General also referred us to Entry 2-A in List 1 of Schedule VII and entries 1 and 2 in List 2 of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, in support of the submission that affording police protection was a State subject. The relevant entries will clearly show that the role of the Central Police Force is only to render assistance on a requisition by the State Government concerned. The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that, he has instructions from the competent authority of the Union Government to file review petition before the learned Single Judge on the limited aspect covered in Paragraph 8 of the present impugned order dated 08.12.2020 in the Contempt Petition.
7. In the above circumstances, we admit this writ appeal. W.A.No.6 of 2021 8 Sri. Roshen D. Alexander, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the sole respondent. We direct that further proceedings before the learned Single Judge in Cont. Case(C)No.2615/2019 in W.P. (C).No.25089/2019, pursuant to the impugned order dated 08.12.2020,will stand deferred. This order will be in force till the next posting date.
8. The Registry will show the name of Sri.P.Vijayakumar, Assistant Solicitor General, instructed by Sri. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Central Government counsel in the cause list.
List the case on 15.01.2021.
Hand over Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE VPK