While refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple Management case, the Supreme Court noted that contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

Deeming the case to be not fit for the same, the Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka said that the Court isn't going to punish the Respondants just becuase it holds power to do so. It will not direct to refund the Temple money allegedly misappropriated by the Board.

The Supreme Court had on July 7, 2015 upheld the Gauhati High Court decision to restore the administration of the temple to the Bordeuri Samaj, which comprises of five main families of priests. They claimed in their case that they had run the temple since time immemorial until 1998- when the Kamakhya Debutter Board was formed and usurped usurped the power that has been historically vested in the office of Dolois.

The present contempt case arises out of the non-compliance with the Supreme Court's July 7, 2015 judgment on behalf of the Respondants.

The Court noted that the first grievance in the contempt petitions is that the possession of the immovable properties being 2 buildings mentioned in paragraph 2(t) of the contempt petition has not been handed over to Bordeuri Samaj by the Respondents.

The second grievance is that various movable properties of the Temple, as detailed in the representation dated 3rd August 2015, have not been handed over to the petitioner.

The third grievance is that though as per the statement of accounts submitted on behalf of Debutter Board, it was holding surplus cash of estimated amount of ₹11 crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid to them.

Fourth grievance is that books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the petitioner.

Responding to it, the Court observed:

"Initially, notice of these petitions was issued only to the respondent no.5 - Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, notice was also issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 as well. In the order dated 18th April 2016 passed in these contempt petitions, this Court recorded undertaking of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that they will furnish whatever remaining details relating to their bank accounts and the funds available in their accounts. The undertaking was recorded without prejudice to the stand of the said respondents that certain accounts are not connected with Kamakhya Devalaya. Further order dated 4th July 2016 passed by this Court records that the respondent no.5 stated that an inquiry is being held to find out all the details."
"This Court directed the respondent nos.1 to 4 to file copies of the consolidated accounts, if not filed earlier, as well as copies of the entries for the relevant period in the pass books of all the bank accounts. By the Order of this Court dated 16th August 2017, the State of Assam was ordered to be made a party to the petition. The State Government filed an affidavit in terms of the order of this Court dated 6th August 2019 incorporating the steps which it was proposing to take for implementing the Judgment dated 7th July 2015. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed which was dealt with in the order dated 15th November 2019 (where the Court noted that the state wishes to examine, by way of preliminary enquiry, what is the amount of surplus money- that is stated to be Rs.11 Crores and odd- and which is disputed. 'The State may conduct such preliminary enquiry which may then be given to us in the form of a report in a sealed cover within a period of six weeks from today', the Court had said)",

 Misappropriation of Funds

The 2015 judgment had elaborately recorded that on January 31, 2020, a bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman had taken noted that a sum of ₹7,62,03,498/- has been withdrawn in cash by the Kamakhya Debuttor Board from 2 accounts, one in UCO Bank and one in United Bank of India and noted that the withdrawals have taken place in violation of the Supreme Court's order without taking approval from the Deputy Commissioner, and are being cleverly split into amounts of ₹50,000/- so as to give an impression as if the order is complied with. The Court founded it to be a case of misappropriation of funds by the Board prima facie.

The Bench thus moted that a proper investigation based on lodging of criminal case would facilitate discovery of financial trail, exact extent of misappropriation, identity of co-conspirators, retrieval of relevant documents, etc and directed lodging of a Criminal Case.

The Court in the instant case so observed:

"We have given careful consideration to their submissions. We have already quoted paragraph 73 of the Judgment dated 7th July 2015, which contains effective directions. Perusal of the Judgment shows that there is no discussion therein about the liability of the respondent nos.1 to 4 to pay any specific amount. Paragraph 73 refers to premises and other properties of Kamakhya Temple. However, there is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by the respondent nos.1 to 4 to the petitioner."
 "Though there is no specific direction in paragraph 73 to pay any amount, reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the order dated 31st January 2020, which we have quoted above. It is recorded in the said order that the report of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, prima facie, establishes misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board. Even in this order, there is no direction issued to pay the money which has been allegedly misappropriated. The reason is that the prima facie observation about misappropriation is based on the view expressed in the report. What is observed in the said report is not conclusive."

Concluding that the case doesn't invite Contempt Proceedings, the Court stated: 

"It is argued that the report of the Additional Director General of CID, Assam has not been disputed by the concerned respondents. Perusal of the order dated 31st January 2020 shows that there was no opportunity granted to the parties to file any objections to the report. It cannot be said that as the respondents did not object to the report, they have accepted the liability to pay the amount of Rs.7,62,03,498/-. Moreover, the observations in the report cannot be treated as concluded findings. Even assuming that paragraph 73 of the Judgment dated 7th July 2015 includes a direction to pay money, there is no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability. Hence, in our view, no case made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

The petition was thus accordingly dismissed.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon