Heard Sri K.V.Sohan vs Sri Roshen D.Alexander
2021 Latest Caselaw 492 Ker

           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

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

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

"(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

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

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

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

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