Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Contempt

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 129 – Power of Supreme Court to punish a person for contempt is not constrained by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Power of Supreme Court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Bysclaw

May 27, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

MEENAL BHARGAVA — Appellant

Vs.

NAVEEN SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent

( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )

Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 340-342 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 1341-1343 of 2019

Decided on : 16-05-2023

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 129 – Power of Supreme Court to punish a person for contempt is not constrained by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Power of Supreme Court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Pawan, Advocate, Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate, Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Advocate, Mr. Aakarsh, Advocate, Mr. Suchit Singh Rawat, Advocate, Ms. Shivangi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate, Mrs. Vanshja Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Advocate, Mr. Nakul Changappa K.K.,Advocate, Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Advocate, Ms. Indra Bhakar, Advocate, Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Shlok Chandra, Advocate, Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa,Advocate, Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Pratyush Srivastav, Advocate, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Nain, Advocate, Ms. Bani Dikshit, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

 

  • Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549

 

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J. – By judgment and order dated 16th January 2023, we held the respondent no.1 (contemnor) guilty of contempt. We have recorded detailed findings in the said judgment and order. Before we passed the said Order, the learned counsel for the contemnor was fully heard and in fact, the contemnor was also present through video conferencing. We postponed the sentencing part only with the object of giving last opportunity to the contemnor to make amends. However, we find that the contemnor has not shown any signs of remorse. On the contrary, the submissions made on his behalf clearly show that the contemnor has scant respect for the Orders of this Court.

2. We are not reproducing all the findings recorded in the earlier order. In terms of the undertaking given by the contemnor and the orders of this Court passed from time to time, he was under an obligation to bring back the child to India on 1st July 2022. We also noted the conduct of the contemnor in paragraph 12, which shows that he never had any intention of bringing the child back to India.

3. The learned counsel for the contemnor invited our attention to the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (for short “the Circuit Court”) of 24th January 2023. He pointed out that the said proceedings record that one Mr Wasko has been appointed as the Guardian Ad Litem by the said Court in the USA. He submitted that as the child was subjected to sexual abuse while he was staying with the petitioner in India, a forensic investigation is in progress in the United States of America (USA), and therefore, the child cannot be brought back to India unless the investigation is over. Learned counsel pointed out the submissions made by Mr. Wasko before the said Court. He submitted that the contemnor has acted in the best interests of the minor child and that he has acted in a bonafide manner to protect the interests of the minor child. He submitted that now that Guardian Ad Litem has been appointed, the contemnor cannot bring back the child to India so long as the appointment continues to exist.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the various aspects of the conduct of the contemnor and pointed out that, in fact, he is guilty of even criminal contempt.

5. Following factual aspects indicate the extent of the contumacious conduct of the contemnor:-

(i) A finding has been recorded in our earlier order that the contemnor never intended to bring back the child to India;

(ii) The child holds a USA passport. The contemnor has not even applied for renewal of the passport though the passport expired long back. In one of the earlier hearings, he pleaded that since an investigation is pending in USA about the sexual abuse of the child, he could not apply for renewal of his passport. However, he has not placed on record any constraint put on him either under any law of USA or an order of the competent Court which prevented him from applying for renewal or extension of the passport of the minor;

(iii) The contemnor never applied to this Court for a grant of extension of time to bring back the child. For the first time, by filing a counter affidavit to the contempt petition, he tried to seek an extension of time without giving any justification;

(iv) The contemnor always acted contrary to the statement made by him on more than one occasion that he has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Court. He pleaded in the Courts in USA that he has not subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Court; and

(v) Even after the expiry of three months from the date of the order holding him guilty of contempt, he has not shown any remorse in any manner.

6. Now we deal with the claim of the contemnor that he acted in the best interests of the minor. The proceedings of the Circuit Court dated 24th January 2023 are relevant for the purpose. The Court noted that the minor son was talking about his ancestral house being sold. The Court observed that it was a gross error on the part of the contemnor to talk to the child about pending litigations either in India or Canada. The Judge of the Circuit Court directed the contemnor that he was “truly and utterly” prohibited from discussing the litigations in India, USA and Canada with his minor son. We have also noted that the child talked about the sale of the property of his grandmother when in one of the video conference hearings, the child appeared with the contemnor. It is obvious that it is the contemnor who must have apprised the child about the litigation.

7. The property of the contemnors mother was required to be sold due to the gross default committed by the contemnor. The contemnor is least bothered about the fact that his mother lost her property due to his default. However, apart from committing impropriety by informing the child about the details of the pending litigations, he tried to prejudice the minors mind by telling him that his ancestral property is being sold at the instance of the mother.

8. The contemnor has shown scant respect to the judicial proceedings pending in this Court. He has defied assurance given to this Court that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court. As noted in paragraph 15 of the earlier order, the contemnor went to the extent of opposing the request for mirroring the order of this Court, which resulted in the denial of the said request by the concerned Foreign Court. In fact, due to the misrepresentation made by the contemnor, the Foreign Court has not honoured the principle of comity of Courts. The act of denying the fact that he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court and his conduct of opposing the request for the grant of mirroring order amounts to interference with the administration of justice and obstructing the administration of justice.

9. Another disturbing feature of the conduct of the contemnor has been noted on page 41 of the proceedings dated 24th January 2023 of the Circuit Court. The contemnor submitted before the Circuit Court that the said Court should make sure that there is an order passed that the questions and answers in the proceedings should not be used in any proceedings in India. In fact, he tried to warn Mr. Wasko, who was appointed as Guardian ad litem, that based on the proceedings, he can be summoned by Indian Courts. The contemnor reiterated that he wants to be careful as the proceedings have been used in Indian Courts. The contemnor knows that his conduct of defying the orders of this Court and showing disrespect to the orders of this Court can be established from the proceedings in the Circuit Court. His attempt before the Circuit Court was to ensure that his contumacious conduct, as reflected in the Circuit Courts proceedings, should not be made available to this Court. In short, his attempt was to suppress the proceedings.

10. The acts and omissions of the contemnor, as reflected in what we have discussed above, amount to both civil and criminal contempt. This calls for a strict action against him.

11. This Court in the case of In Re : Perry Kansagra[1], while relying upon decisions of this Court in the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549 and Re : Vijay Kurle and Others[2] held that in view of Article 129 of the Constitution of India, the power of this Court to punish a person for contempt is not constrained by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In fact, this Court has observed that the power of this Court to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

[1] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1516

[2] 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407

12. Considering his contumacious conduct, we propose to direct the contemnor to pay a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for committing civil and criminal contempt. In default of payment of the fine, he will have to undergo a further sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.

13. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:

i) The contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He shall pay a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs within a period of six months from today. The fine amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court. On the failure of the contemnor to pay the fine within the stipulated time, he shall undergo a further sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.

ii) After the fine amount is deposited in this Court, the same shall be released to the petitioner, who will be under an obligation to use the said amount only for the welfare and benefit of the minor son.

iii) We direct the Government of India as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation to take all possible and permissible steps to secure the presence of the contemnor in India with a view to ensure that he undergoes the sentence and pays the fine.

14. For reporting compliance, the case shall be listed in the first week of August, 2023.

By sclaw

Related Post

Constitution Contempt

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 — Sections 3 and 4 — The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a writ petition against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for spreading misinformation about modern medicine — Whether Patanjali violated court orders by continuing to make misleading claims about their products’ medicinal efficacy —IMA argued that Patanjali continued to make false claims about their products despite court orders prohibiting such actions — Patanjali and its representatives claimed that any misleading statements were inadvertent and offered apologies — The court found Patanjali in contempt for violating its orders and issued further restrictions on their advertising practices — The court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity of the judiciary and preventing misleading advertisements —The court referred to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and relevant case law to justify its decision —Patanjali was found in contempt, and further measures were imposed to ensure compliance with court orders.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw
Bail Granted Contempt

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw
Contempt

“Subhasish Panda, DDA Vice Chairman appears before the court and accepts that not only the trees on the land vesting in the DDA were felled but even trees on the area of forest were felled. We direct the VC to file his personal affidavit on remedial measures which he proposes to take. Prima facie, this would amount to criminal contempt however, we’ll pass appropriate order in this regard on the next date.”

May 26, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw