Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan laid down the conditions when an order passed by a single judge in contempt is appealable to the division bench.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others. 

What was the Background of Deepak Kumar and Another v. Devina Tewari and Others. Case?  

• The Respondent (Devina Tewari) in this case filed a contempt application related to previous High Court order from April 2015. 
• The original 2015 High Court judgment directed a college to reinstate the respondent to service. 
• On January 5, 2022, a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the contempt application, finding that no contempt had been committed. 
• The Respondent then filed an appeal against this Single Judge order before the Division Bench of the High Court. 
• The Division Bench passed an interim order allowing the respondent to submit a joining report within 15 days and directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the college. 
• The appellant (Deepak Kumar) challenged the maintainability of this appeal, arguing it was not tenable based on the Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. Case. 
• The respondent's counsel argued that since the Single Judge went into the merits of the matter, the appeal was maintainable under Clause V of the Midnapore judgment. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Apex Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the Single Judge clearly stated that no contempt was committed regarding the original April 2015 court order.  
• According to the Supreme Court's previous Midnapore judgment, such an order declining to initiate contempt proceedings is not appealable. 
• The respondent's argument trying to use Clause V of the Midnapore judgment was rejected by the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court found that the Single Judge's order did not involve any decision on the merits of the original case. 
• The only legal remedy available to the respondent was to file a special leave petition directly to the Supreme Court. 
• Hence, the Court finally dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court’s Division Bench.

What is the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC Act? 

• The CC Act was passed by Parliament in the year 1971 and came into force on 24th December 1974. 
• The main objective of the CC Act is to protect the integrity of the courts. 
• This CC Act gives inherent powers to the court to punish against its own contempt. 
• Contempt of court seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority. 
• When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India (COI). 
• Separately, Article 129 of the COI conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself. 
• Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts. 
• There are two kinds of contempt: 
  • Civil Contempt: It is the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 
  • Criminal Contempt: It is the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act which scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. 

What is the Provision for Appeal under the CC Act?  

• The provisions related to appeal are given under Section 19 of the CC Act as 
  • Clause (1) states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt— 
    • where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court. 
    • where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. 
  • Clause (2) states that pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that— 
    • The execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended. 
    • If the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail. 
    • The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. 
  • Clause (3) states that where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). 
  • Clause (4) states that an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed— 
    • In the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days. 
    • In the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.

What are the Principles Governing Appeals Against Orders in Contempt Proceedings? 

• The Court laid down the principles in the case of Mindnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006):  
  • An appeal under Section 19 will only lie against an order or decision of the High Court imposing punishment for contempt. 
  • There can be no appeal in following circumstances (however in special circumstances they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the COI): 
    • an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt 
    • an order initiating proceeding for contempt 
    • an order dropping the proceedings for contempt 
    • an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor 
  • The High Court may in a proceeding for contempt decide whether any contempt has been committed and if so, what should be the punishment. 
    • In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. 
  • Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties will not be in the exercise of the 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore not appealable under section 19 of the CC Act. 
    • The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. 
  • If the High Court decides an issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties in a contempt proceeding the aggrieved person is not without remedy. 
    • Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-Court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the COI (in other cases).