The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad while dealing with a contempt petition observed, "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. For the acts done by the Respondent No.1/Contemnor, he deserves no mercy from this Court. A strong message has to be sent to the society that the orders of the Court cannot be flouted by using strong arm tactics."
Facts of the case
A contempt petition was filed against an alleged willful violation of the orders of the High Court.
The petitioner had moved to the High Court against the non-consideration of her application for putting up a boundary wall to secure her property in terms of the revenue land records, however, proper police protection had not been granted to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner moved an application, seeking directions.
The said application was considered by the High Court on December 21, 2020, wherein the Court had directed (in terms of an earlier order) Police to grant protection to the Petitioner at the time of construction of the boundary wall.
In furtherance of this, the boundary wall was constructed, however, the respondents with the aid of certain persons arrived at the premises and demolished the boundary wall constructed by the Petitioner. About which a contempt petition was filed.
Contention of the Parties
The Counsel of the Respondent No. 1 again submitted that demolition of the wall was a result of misconception rather a willful disobedience as the properties are adjacent and dispute regarding demarcation. An unconditional apology was also tendered.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The Court at the very outset noted that admittedly, the dispute as to whether the boundary wall has been constructed on the property of the Petitioner or on the property of the Respondent No.1/Contemnor is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue.
The demolition of the boundary wall took place after more than a year of the construction and hence was not a 'heat of the moment' decision and the Respondent willfully flouted the orders passed by the Court.
The Court remarked that the Respondent no. 1 ought not have demolished the boundary wall contrary to Court's order and especially when the petitioner have given an undertaking.
The bench observed, "The manner in which the demolition took place, i.e. by using a JCB excavator and with the aid of other people, also indicate that the Respondent No.1/Contemnor harboured the intention to terrorize the Petitioner. This demonstrates that the Respondent No.1/Contemnor possess scant regard towards the orders of the Court, and has undermined the dignity of the Court and outraged the majesty of law. The action of the Respondent No.1/Contemnor cannot be said to be an outcome of confusion regarding the site where the boundary wall has been constructed, especially when the matter was still under consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue."
The Court referred to the Apex Court observation in the case of Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584, wherein it delineated the purpose of the law of contempt in building confidence in the judicial process.
The bench disposing off the petition remarked, "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.
…Respondent no.1 deserves no mercy and that strong message should be sent via the order and accordingly fined him Rs.2,000/- and ordered 45 days imprisonment."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
