Telangana High Court
Mrs. Timothy T Gonmei vs Mrs. Madhavi on 19 July, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, N.Tukaramji
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CONTEMPT CASE No.413 OF 2024
O R D E R:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard learned party-in-person, Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 5 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7.
2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 and batch.
3. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court held that the detention and arrest of the petitioner for seven (07) days was unlawful and she suffered infringement of her fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation on the State. This Court directed the Home Department to deposit the said amount before the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, whereafter, it would be open to the petitioner to withdraw the same from the Registry. 2
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024
4. According to the petitioner, the contemnors failed to deposit the said amount within the timelines prescribed by this Court in the said order. Therefore, they have violated the said order willfully and deliberately.
5. Respondent No.7 has filed counter affidavit contending as follows:-
i. They have applied for certified copy of the order on 03.03.2023;
ii. Thereafter, they preferred SLP on 08.05.2023 vide SLP (Civil) Diary No.19662 of 2023;
iii. The said SLP was dismissed on 06.10.2023, as withdrawn;
iv. They have approached the Registry of this Court to deposit the said amount on 17.10.2023; and the Registry refused to receive the said amount on the ground that the time granted by this Court had elapsed;
v. Therefore, they have filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.(SR) No.86685 of 2023, on 01.11.2023 seeking extension of time and got numbered on 16.12.2023;3
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 vi. The said Interlocutory Application was listed before this Court on 04.04.2024 and this Court granted a week's time to respondent No.7 to deposit the said amount;
vii. Thereafter, respondent No.7 deposited the said amount on 08.04.2024;
viii. The Principal Secretary of Home for Telangana, State Secretariat, Hyderabad, was shown as respondent No.7 and notice was issued to him on 22.04.2024;
ix. Therefore, according to respondent No.7, there is no violation, much less willful or deliberate violation of the order dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 & batch; and x. However, if in case, this Court finds that the respondent No.7 had violated the order of this Court, he tendered his unconditional apology.
6. Learned party-in-person would contend that on 27.02.2024 this Court ordered notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the present Contempt Case. Even then, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court did not send notices to all the respondents and therefore he has committed willful and deliberate violation of the said order, dated 27.02.2024. 4
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024
7. Learned party-in-person would further contend that Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home cannot appear on behalf of respondent No.7, without filing Vakalat. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said notice, respondent No.6 did not enter appearance. This Court has power to initiate contempt proceedings against the Registrar (Judicial) suo motu. She has placed reliance on Section 66 of Cr.P.C. and also Rule 81 (A) of Madras High Court Order. Respondent No.6 may be set ex-parte.
8. Learned party-in-person also placed reliance on Section 13(A) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to contend that there is substantial interference in the dignity of the Court. Therefore, the respondents are liable for contempt. Mere filing of the SLP and an Interlocutory Application seeking extension of time granted to respondent No.7 to deposit the said amount is not sufficient and they have to obtain proper orders. The unconditional apology tendered by respondent No.7 also cannot be accepted since respondent No.7 cannot tender apology with condition.
9. She further placed reliance on the order of this Court in C.C.No.1034 of 2021, dated 29.04.2022, also relied on Rule 32 (1) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980, and contended that the respondents 5 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 cannot slap and say sorry. Thus, according to learned party-in-person, the respondents willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 & batch and committed contempt.
10. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home would contend that there is no willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 by respondent No.7 and they have applied for certified copy on 03.03.2023 and on obtaining the same, they preferred an SLP. Thereafter, they have approached the Registrar of this Court to deposit the amount awarded by this Court and on refusal by the Registrar, they filed an Interlocutory application seeking extension of time and the same was granted on 04.04.2024. Therefore, respondent No.7 has deposited the said amount of Rs.50,000/- within the time granted by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2023. Thus, respondent No.7 has deposited the said amount on 08.04.2024. Therefore, there is no violation, much less willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 01.03.2023.
11. The undisputed facts in the present case are that this Court vide order dated 01.03.2023, in W.P.No.23116 of 2020 having held that the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of Constitution of India was infringed; there was illegal detention, directed the Department of Home 6 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Thereafter, this Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the said amount from the Registry. Respondent No.7 filed copy application on 03.03.2023 to obtain certified copy of the said order. They preferred an SLP on 08.05.2023 and the same was dismissed on 06.10.2023. They have approached the Registry of this Court on 17.10.2023, for the purpose of depositing the said amount in compliance of the order dated 01.03.2023 and the Registry of this Court refused to receive the same on the ground that the time granted had elapsed. Therefore, they have filed an application seeking extension of time granted by this Court on 01.11.2023. The said Interlocutory Application was ordered on 04.04.2024 and this Court granted a week's time to respondents to deposit the said amount. Accordingly, they have deposited the amount on 08.04.2024.
12. The time granted by this Court in the order dated 01.03.2023 expired on 17.04.2023. Thus, there is delay in depositing the said amount in compliance with the order passed by this Court dated 01.03.2023. But, according to respondent No.7, they have applied for 7 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 certified copy and on obtaining the same, they have preferred an SLP, which was dismissed on 06.10.2023.
13. We have extended the time to deposit the said amount of Rs.50,000/- on 04.04.2024 by one week. Within the said period, respondent No.7 has deposited the said amount on 08.04.2024. There is no challenge to the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by this Court extending the time to deposit.
14. Thus, the extension of time granted to respondent No.7 to deposit the aforesaid amount vide order dated 04.04.2024 itself is condonation of the said delay by respondent No.7 in depositing the said amount.
15. Respondent No.7 has also tendered an unconditional apology to this Court.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgements time and again categorically held that to punish a contemnor under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, there should be deliberate and willful violation of the order and mere allegation of violation of the order is not sufficient.
8
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024
17. It is apposite at this juncture of proceedings to refer to the case in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India 1 wherein the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while elucidating on the contempt jurisdiction held thus:
"42. The contempt of Court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the Courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining "the jury, the judge and the hangman" and it is so because the Court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of Courts should not be imperilled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. It is a matter between the Court and the contemner and third parties cannot intervene. It is exercised in a summary manner in aid of the 1 . (1998) 4 SCC 409 9 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 administration of justice, the majesty of law and the dignity of the Courts. No such act can be permitted which may have the tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice."
18. In Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana 2, the Apex Court elucidated on willful disobedience and the relevant paragraph is extracted herein below:
"9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines "civil contempt" to mean "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court."
Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an order of a Court made in favour of a party, it is a civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been made can move the Court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The Court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished 2 . (1994) 6 SCC 332 10 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a Court, the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil Court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the Court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the Court, the Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the 11 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 order, the Court may not punish the alleged contemner."
19. While reviewing the nature of contempt proceedings, it is important to examine the acts of the alleged contemnor. The Court has clarified that while the beneficiary of a Court order is entitled to its enforcement, the evaluation of whether a contemnor should be punished for non-compliance involves a comprehensive consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. The Contempt of Courts Act specifies that civil contempt involves willful disobedience of Court order. Consequently, before a contemnor can be penalized, the Court must ascertain not only that there has been disobedience but also that such disobedience was deliberate and intentional.
20. In a contempt proceeding, before a contemnor can be adjudged guilty and subjected to punishment, the Court must establish that the disobedience was both willful and intentional. The Court must make a specific finding to this effect. Furthermore, if the Court, upon examining the circumstances of a particular case, concludes that disobedience occurred due to extenuating factors, it retains the discretion to refrain from punishing the alleged contemnor despite acknowledging the anomaly, if any.
12
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024
21. In Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi 3, the Apex Court in a similar view held as under:
"30. In an appropriate case where exceptional circumstances exist, the Court may also resort to the provisions applicable in case of civil contempt, in case of violation/breach of undertaking/ judgment/ order or decree. However, before passing any final order on such application, the Court must satisfy itself that there is violation of such judgment, decree, direction or order and such disobedience is wilful and intentional. Though in a case of execution of a decree, the executing Court may not be bothered whether the disobedience of the decree is wilful or not and the Court is bound to execute a decree whatever may be the consequence thereof. In a contempt proceeding, the alleged contemnor may satisfy the Court that disobedience has been under some compelling circumstances, and in that situation, no punishment can be awarded to him."
xxxx xxxx xxxx "38. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof required is in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There 3 . (2012) 4 SCC 307 13 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata Bandhopadhyaya v. State of W.B. [AIR 1969 SC 189 : 1969 Cri LJ 401] , this Court observed as under: (AIR p. 193, para 9).
"9. A question whether there is contempt of Court or not is a serious one. The Court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation.
It behoves the Court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in Courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. ... Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."(emphasis added)"
Proving the specific intention behind an act or omission is improbable. Consequently, in such an event, Courts must approach this issue objectively, presuming intention based on the actions taken, as individuals are generally presumed to intend the probable consequences of their actions.
14
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024
22. In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (deceased) rep. by LRs.4, relied on the principles laid down by Niaz Mohammad2, Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, 5 Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj 6 and also the definition of 'willful' from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at Page 1599 along with the definition of 'civil contempt' under Section - 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Apex Court in paragraph No.56 held as under:
"56. Hence, the expression or word "wilful" means act or omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent to do something which the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either Page 44 of 83 to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose."
23. In this present case, the Department of Home was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation within six weeks from the receipt of the order. On such deposit, this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the amount from the Registry. On 03.03.2023, Respondent No. 7 applied for a certified copy of the order. Subsequently, on 08.05 4 . 2023 INSC 805 5 . (2003) 11 SCC 1 6 . (2014) 16 SCC 204 15 KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 2023, they preferred a Special Leave Petition vide SLP (Civil) Diary No. 19662 of 2023, which was dismissed on 06.10. 2023.
24. Respondent No. 7 then approached the Registry of this Court on 17.10.2023, intending to deposit the amount in compliance with the order dated 01.03.2023. However, the Registry refused to accept the deposit, citing the expiration of the allotted time to deposit. Consequently, Respondent No.7 filed an Interlocutory Application on 01.10.2023, seeking an extension of time initially granted by this Court for depositing the compensation awarded.
25. The said Interlocutory Application was subsequently allowed on 04.04 2024, wherein this Court granted an additional (01) week for the respondents to deposit the amount. Complying with this extension, the amount was deposited on 08.04.2024.
26. In light of the aforesaid discussions, it thus becomes clear that for bringing an action under the ambit of civil contempt, there has to be a willful and deliberate disobedience to the order or willful breach of the order. The contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
27. As discussed supra, vide order dated 01.03.2023, this Court directed respondent No.7 to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/-. 16
KL,J & NTR,J C.C. No.413 of 2024 There is no direction to respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the direction is only to respondent No.7. Therefore, when there is no direction to respondent Nos.2 to 6, committing of contempt by them does not arise.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of willful, deliberate and intentional disobedience of any of the directions given by this Court. This is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the respondents. On the contrary, we find that the respondents had taken recourse to the legal remedy available to them under Constitution.
29. In the result, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 19th July, 2024 SA