Issuance Of Contempt Notice Is Not A Causal Or Routine Procedure; Prima Facie Case Of Contempt Has To Be Made Out: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court observed that the issuance of notice in a contempt matter is not a causal or routine procedure.
The Court said that the contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature carries much more rigor than any other judicial proceedings for adjudicating disputes.
The Lucknow Bench explained that the power to punish for contempt was vested in the High Court as an inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution by virtue of which “it is a court of record having plenary powers including the power to punish for its contempt.” The Court pointed out the settled position of law that the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 did not supersede or abrogate the inherent powers vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “Issuance of notice in a contempt matter is not a causal or routine procedure. It requires due and proper application of mind to the aforesaid facts and issues. We must keep in mind that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. These proceedings carry a rigor much more than any other judicial proceedings for adjudication of disputes. These proceedings are in exercise of powers of the High Court to punish for its contempt and that of the subordinate courts.”
Sr. Advocate Lalta Prasad Misra represented the appellants, while Sr. Advocate Sandeep Dixit appeared for the respondent.
An appeal was filed by the Vice Chancellor of the King George's Medical University (KGMU) challenging the orders of the Contempt Court. Earlier, an interim order was issued in a writ petition alleging that the Executive Council of KGMU violated the said interim order. Subsequently, a contempt petition was filed on the claims of “willful disobedience” of the Court’s directives.
The primary contention in the appeal was the Contempt Court's decision to allow the impleadment of the current Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Soniya Nityanand and other members of the Executive Council, who were not part of the council when the resolution was passed. Notices were issued to the newly impleaded respondents to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt.
The appellants argued that they were not involved in the events leading to the alleged contempt, as they were appointed to their positions much later. They contended that the Contempt Court had passed the order in the absence of jurisdictional facts by initiating contempt proceedings without establishing prima facie evidence of civil contempt against them.
The Bench noted that the contempt proceedings should be exercised with “circumspection and due and proper application of mind” even if it were to be done at the stage of initiation of such proceedings.
The Court noted, “This apart, ordinarily, when an application for impleadment is filed in a pending contempt proceedings, practice has been to issue notice to the proposed opposite party before considering it so that they may have an opportunity to inform the contempt court about the correct facts, unless from the facts placed and documents annexed, an exceptional case is made out, prima facie. This is a time tested procedure and a procedural requirement which should ordinarily be adhered.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: Prof. Soniya Nityanand & Ors. v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:40982-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Lalta Prasad Misra; Advocate Shubham Tripathi
Respondent: Sr. Advocate Sandeep Dixit; Advocate Sandeep Kumar Ojha