Contemptofcourt:jurisdic2onsIndia,SriLanka,UK

C.J.Miller,ContemptofCourt,3rdEdi2on(2000,OxfordUniversityPress)

Contempt of court, termed as a legalthumbscrew, is so manifold and soamorphous that it is difficult to laydown any precise defini:on of theoffence.

InFacie/ExFacie

"Tradi2onally, contempt are classified aseitherinthefaceofthecourt(infaciecuriae)or not in the face of the court (ex faciecuriae)."contemptinthefaceofthecourt(infacie)contempt commiPed outside the court (exfacie)

Acontemptinthefaceofthecour t may be b road lydescribed as any wordspoken or act done in, or inthe precincts of, the courtwhichobstructsor interfereswith the due administra8onof jus8ce or is calculated todo so. Examples: assaultscommi>edincourt;insultstothe court; interrup8on ofcourt proceedings; refusal tobe sworn or, having beensworn,refusaltoanswer.

Conductoutsidethecourtmaybedescribed as words spoken orotherwisepublished,oractsdone,outside courtwhich are intendedor likely to interfere with orobstructthefairadministra8onofjus8ce.Examplesare:publica8onsintendedorlikelytoprejudicethefair trial of criminal or civilproceedings; publica8ons thatscandalize or lower the authorityof the court; actswhich interferewith or obstruct persons havingdu8es to discharge in a court ofjus8ce.

Contemptonthefaceofcourt

RamNiranjanRoyVs.StateofBiharandOrs.,JT2014(4)SC477

Police officer claiming figh2ng for the cause of all policeofficers in the state of Bihar wanted to be joined in theproceedings issued by the high court regardingmaPers oftransferofpoliceofficers.Howeverthehighcourtaskedhimto take permission of the DGP. Thereupon he startedshou2ngatthejudgesandcreatedscenesinthecourt.TheHighCourt senthimto jailaspunishment foraday i.e. fortwenty four hours. Aggrieved by this order he approachedthe Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that when acontemptiscommiPedinthefaceoftheHighCourtortheSupremeCourttoscandaliseorhumiliatetheJudge,instantac2onisnecessary.SupremeCourtdirectedhimtodepositafineof Rs. 25,000/-with the SupremeCourt Legal ServicesCommiPeewithin4weeks2me,failingwhichheshallsuffersimpleimprisonmentfor7days.

A.M.E.FernandoVs.TheA>orneyGeneral,LEX/SLSC/0032/2003Pe22oner suffered injuries in his employee of the Y.M.C.A.. He filed anapplica2on to theDeputyCommissioner,Workmen’sCompensa2onAct forredress in respect of the injuries suffered by him. Not sa2sfied withcompensa2on awarded, he made a complaint to the Human RightsCommission of Sri Lanka, in respect of the proceedings before the DeputyCommissioner.HRC informed its inability to proceedwith the complaint interms of the powers vested in it. He thereaeer complained to theOmbudsmanseekingpublicapologyfromtheDeputyCommissionerofWCAandtheHRCofSriLanka.TheOmbudsmanonadviceoftheJudicialServiceCommissioninformedhimthatsuchreliefcanonlybeobtainedinappealtothe SC. Pe22oner thereupon approached the SC. The Court did not findmaterial to substan2ate submissions made by the pe22oner. Pe22onerthereuponfiledanapplica2onnaming theAPorney-General, Secretary JSC,ChairmanJSC,theRegistrarofSC,theChiefJus2ceandtheothertwoJudgesasrespondents.HewasinformedbytheBenchthathecannotpersistinfilingapplica2onsofthisnaturewithoutanybasisandabusingtheprocessofthisCourt. On this he raised his voice and insisted on his right to pursue theapplica2on.Hewasthenwarnedbutinspiteofthewarning,hepersistedindisturbingtheproceedingsof theCourt fromthebar tableof theCourt.Atthis stage he was sentenced to 1 year RI for the offence of commigngcontemptofCourt.TheCourtheldtheconductofthePe22onercons2tutedContempt for which he was liable to be summarily judged and punishedwithoutevenaformalcharge.

SentencingforContempt:UK,India,SriLanka

B(ALGERIA)v.SecretaryOfStateForHomeDeptUKSCON30/1/2013

B (Algerian na2onal) was sentenced to 4 monthsimprisonment by the SIAC (Special Immigra2onAppeals Commission) as he refused to obey earlierordermade to disclose his true iden2ty. B appealedagainst SIAC’s order commigng him for contempt.BoththeCourtofAppealandtheSCdismissedappealagainst4monthscommiPalorderobservingthattheloss of residual liberty is unlikely to weigh againstorderofpunishingthecontemnor.

M.V. Jayarajan vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors.(2015)4SCC81DBoftheKeralaHCbannedtheholdingofmee2ngsonpublicroadstoensureaccident-freeanduninterruptedtraffic. Thereaeer Appellant delivered a speech in apublicmee2ng condemning the decision of the courtbyusingexpressionslike"ifthosejudgeshaveanyself-respect, they should resign and quit their offices".Differentmediahouses reportedandpublished it.Hewas held guilty of contempt of court by the HC. InappealtotheSC,courtagreedthatappellantintendedtolowerthedignityofthecourtandhenceconfirmedtheorderoftheHCinholdinghimguiltyofcontemptof court but reduced his sentence awarded of 6monthsimprisonmenttothatofSIfor4weeks.

Heathcliffe Proper8es Ltd v Dodhia Chancery Division, 20October2016[2016]EWHC2628Dissolu2on of a partnership between the par2es led to claimssePled at media2on. It was agreed upon to sell variouspartnership proper2es in accordance with a sePlementagreement.Howeverdefendantsrefusedtoco-operatewiththecourt appointedmaster conduc2ng the sale proceedings. TheyhadstoppedaPendingcourtwhen theywereno longer legallyrepresented. An order was made requiring them to aPend ahearingtoprovidethecourtwiththeassistancerequiredforthesalestoproceed.TheydidnotaPend.Thecourtwascalleduponto determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed on thedefendants, found to be in contempt of court for failing toaPend a hearing in accordance with a court order. The courtheld that the combina2on of circumstances like defendantadmigng their breach, them being first-2me offenders, theirpromise to comply with future orders did not jus2fy animmediate custodial sentence. Each defendant was fined£25,000(paras30-31).

WhethernotobeyinginterimordersContemptofcourt:UK,India,

SriLanka

UpaliDharmasiriWelaratneVs.WesleyJayarajMoses,LEX/SLSC/0018/2009

ThemaPercamebeforetheSCduetoanundertakinggivenbyUintheCourtofAppeal.HeundertookbeforetheCourtof Appeal not to effect further construc2ons and tomaintain the status quo. The interim injunc2on was torestrainU from con2nuing construc2on. It is the viola2onof this undertaking in interim-injunc2on that was raisedbefore theSC.TheSCheld thatonceapartyhasgivenanundertaking,itcannotraisepleathataninterim-injunc2onwas issued without due hearing as the very purpose ofundertakingistosaveforthecourtaswellastothepar2es,valuable2methatwouldotherwisebespentontheinquiryintothegrantofinterimrelief.Norisitopentosuchapartyto later challenge the jurisdic2on of the court if it hadvoluntarily submiPed itself to the jurisdic2on of court bytheveryactofgivingtheundertaking.

Regent Interna8onal Hotels Ltd Vs. Cyril Gardiner AndOthersLEX/SLSC/0006/1980Regent Interna2onal Hotels Ltd.(R), ins2tuted an ac2on forthespecificperformanceofanagreementbetweenitselfandthe (G) Galle Face Hotel Company Ltd., restraining G fromviola2nganyoftherightsofRunderthesaidagreement.TheDistrict Judge entered an interlocutory order and anenjoiningorderrestrainingtheGfromcommignganyoftheactsviola2ngR’s rightunder thesaidagreement.TheorderwasservedonGbutGdisobeyedthesaidorderonanumberofoccasionswhentheRaPemptedtoenforcetheprovisionsofthesaidorder.ThereaeerRins2tutedproceedingsbeforetheCourtofAppeal for contemptofCourtwhichdismissedthe applica2on. The issue before the SC was whether thebreachofanenjoiningorderamountstocontemptofcourt.The SC held that an enjoining order has all the force of aninterim injunc2on and disobedience of an enjoining ordercons2tutesanoffenceofcontemptofcourt.

RelevancyofInten2onindeciding

Contempt:UK,India,SriLanka

•  Na8onalFedera8onofTheBlindVs.SanjayKothari2015(9)SCALE611

Acontemptpe22onwasfiledby federa2onallegingwillfuldisobedience of the judgment of the SC wherein thegovernment was directed to compute the number ofvacanciesavailableinalltheestablishmentsandiden2fytheposts for disabled personswithin a period of 3months. Itwasalleged that thegovernmenthascommiPedcontemptofCourt’sorderbynotmakingprovision for reserva2on inpromo2onandalsobynotiden2fyingthepostsforpersonswithdisabili2es.Thegovernment in itsdefenceonaffidavitstated that steps are taken to fill up 15000 iden2fiedvacancies which also included 5629 posts earmarked forpersons with disabili2es. The court thereupon held thatthereisnowillfuldisobedienceoftheorderofthecourt.Itwasobservedthatfillingupof15000vacancies isamaPerofconsiderablemagnitudeandthattheyareconvincedthatthegovernmentisseriouslycommiPedtowardsinduc2onofpersonswithdisabili2esinlargenumbers.

GyaniChandv.StateofAP2016(9)SCALE45GC gave undertaking in the civil suit before the civil court that hewould produce the documents to the court whenever directed andthat he is collec2ng them for their righoul owner – hismotherwhorequired these documents. Later on mother died and GC lost thedocumentstocyclonein1999thatdestroyedhiswholehouse.Whenthe trial court asked him to produce the documents, he told that iswas impossible for him to return the documents as the same werehandedoverbyhimtotherighoulowner–hismotherwhodiesandmoreover the common house was destroyed in cyclone thusdestroyingallpropertyincludingthedocumentinthathouse.ThetrialcourtreferredthecasetotheHCforini2a2ngcontemptproceedings.TheHCheldGCguiltyandpunishedhim. Inappeal, theSCheld thattherewasnointen2ononthepartofGCtowillfullydisobeyorderofthe court and therefore no contempt case was made out. ThejudgmentoftheHCwassetaside.

BhushnaPowerandSteelLtd(BPSL)vs.RajeshVermaandOrs.(2014)5SCC551-BPSLproposedtosetupofplantinsomeiden2fiedvillagesofOrissaandappliedto the state for grant of lease ofmining of iron ore in the proposed plant. TheStateGovtgavecommitmenttoBPSLthatitsproposalwouldberecommendedtotheCentralGovtforgrantofironoreminesintheproposedplant.Asgran2ngofminingleaseofironorereservesintheaforesaidareafell intoroughweather, itled to the decision that mining lease over the area could not be allowed onvarious grounds and the applica2onmade by BPSL was premature. Thereaeer,stateGovtmadea recommenda2on to theCentralGovernment tograntmininglease in favourofsomeothercompany.ThiswaschallengedbyBPSL in thewritpe22onintheHC.AsHCdismissedtheclaim,BPSLapproachedtheSC.AstheSCwasinformedthattheareahaslargereservesofironore, inwhichtheBPSLcanalsobeaccommodated,SCdirectedtheStatetorecommendthecaseoftheBPSLalso to the Central Govt. On failure to recommend BPSL to the CentralGovernment,thecontemptpe22onfornotabidingwithdirec2onsoftheSCwasfiled. In response, the State pleaded helplessness by narra2ng somecircumstances.TheQ-whethersuchapleacanberaisedtoavoidimplementa2onof thedirec2onscontained in the judgment?TheCourtheldthat thestateGovtinsteadof implemen2ng theorderwas trying tocircumvent the sameanddenythebenefitstothePe22oner.Itwasheldliableforcontempt.

ForumforfilingContempt:UK,India,SriLanka

DilrukshiDiasWickramasingheVs. LakshmanNamalRajapaksha,LEX/SLSC/0104/2016Director General of the Commission filed the casebeforetheSCwhenDdisregardedsummonsissuedbyitwhichorderedhimtoappearbeforethecommissionoveracase.DcontendedthatasperSec2on20(3)(c)ofCommissiontoInves2gateAllega2onsofBriberyorCorrup2on Act 1994 “showing disrespect to theauthority of theCommission is contempt against theCommission”andhencetheopiniononcontempthastobeformedbytheCommissionandnotbytheCourt.SCheld that contemptagainst the "Commission" canbe punished by the SC as though it was commiPedagainsttheSCunderAr2cle105(3)oftheCons2tu2on.

DineshanK.K.Vs.R.K.SinghandAnr.(2015)2SCC496TheHighCourtinthewritpe22ondirectedUOIanditsofficer to re-designate thePe22oner fromtherankofHawaldar (Radio Mechanic) to Warrant Officer asrecommendedbytheMinistryofHomeaffairsandalsotoextend thepay-scalesas given to the rank counterpartsintheCRPFandBSF.AppealagainstthisHCorderin the SCwas dismissedwith costs. Later on, SCwasrequested to ini2ate contempt proceedings againstUOI for disobeying the order passed by the HC andconfirmed by the SC in spite of lapse of considerableperiod of 2me. The SC directed to file contemptpe22on before the HC as the original judgment andorderemanated from theHCandalsowith a view tolessentheburdenontheSC.

Contemptforrestrainingfuture

ac2ons

ANUJJOSHI&ORS.v.CHIEFCONSERVATOROFFORESTS&ORS2016(1)SCALE325

TheSC in judgmentdated13/8/2013passedseveraldirec2onsandoneofthemwastotheMoEFandtheState of UParakhand to not grant any furtherenvironmentalclearancestoanyhydroelectricpowerproject in view of tragedy in the state. Appellantbrought ac2onagainst respondent saying theyhaveviolatedthisjudgmentbytransferringforestlandforhydroelectric power project. The court aeer goingthrough papers found that approval for the sameproject was given much before the judgment on28/5/2013. latercorrespondence inpursuant to thisapprovalcannotbecontemptofjudgment.

ContemptforfalseEvidence:UK,India,SriLanka

SolicitorGeneralvDodd,Queen'sBenchDivision,31January2014,[2014]EWHC240(QB);A CEO and a sales director of a company weresentenced to six and two months' imprisonmentrespec2velyforcontemptofcourtinrela2ontofalsestatementstheyhadputbeforethecourttosupporta passing off claim. The contempt had arisen fromadmiPedfalsestatementsinaclaimforpassingoff.D's conduct was more to blame; he was the chiefins2gator and a sentence of six months'imprisonmentwasappropriate.Chadonlyonefalseaffidavitbutwasapartytotheconcoc2onofemailsand he was sentenced to two months 'imprisonment.

Interna2onal Sports Tours Ltd (t/a Inspire Sports) vShoreyQueen'sBenchDivision,17July2015[2015]EWHC2040S had admiPed knowingly given false evidence in anaffidavittosubvertthedueadministra2onofjus2cewiththespecificintentofunderminingjudicialproceedings.Swasnotgivencustodialsentencebutaskedtopayafineof£1,000onaccountof:(i)SadmiPedthecontemptandtookstepstopurgethecontemptandpreventharm.(ii)S was of previous good character; he had also beensubjecttopersonalpressuresathomeandatwork. (iii)purposesofpunishmenttosecurefuturecompliancedidnot apply in this case. (iv) no evidence to suggest thatprejudicewouldbecausedtotheoppositeparty.

DhirenDave,CompanySecretaryvsSuratDyesAnd3Ors.2016(6)SCC253

Order of the Company Judge direc2ng winding up of theCompanywaschallengedbyfilingthereview.Whilerejec2ngthe Review Pe22on, Company Judge observed that theapplicant tried to build a case on the basis of non-existentdocumentwiththehelpofDhirenDave,CompanySecretary,andbothofthemmadefactualavermentsonaffidavit,whichwere prima facie untrue. Aeer recording these findings,Company Judge directed that the applicant (ShailendraAgrawal)andDavebeprosecutedforcommignganoffencerela2ng to submission of the false documents and also forini2a2onofcontemptproceedingsagainstbothofthem.AnappealbeforetheDBofGujHCwasrejectedandthereuponappeal was filed in the SC. The SC accepted regrets anduncondi2onal apologyand dropped all ac2ons againstappellant.

ClosureofContemptforlapse

of2me

RajeevDhawanVs.GulshanKumarMahajan,JT2014(8)SC530Post BabriMaszid demoli2on, the President, under Ar2cle143 of the Cons2tu2on, referred the Acquisi2on of CertainAreaatAyodhyaAct,1993to theCons2tu2onBench for itsopinion on the validity of the Act. On this reference, V.H.DalmiaandGirirajKishore,ques2onedtheauthorityofcourtsinapressconferencewhichwasreportedbythepress.Thepe22oneradvocatebroughtacontemptpe22onagainsttheauthors of these statements and the publishers andreporters.TheCons2tu2onBenchinyear2014observedthatas themaPer remained dormant for years and authors arenotphysicallyfittorespondtothechargesowingtooldageand bad health and also because contemners tendereduncondi2onal apologies, treated the contemptpe22onas afitforclosure.

Proceduretobefollowedinissuing

Contempt

Tillekeratne Vs. Officer-in-Charge, Pugoda Police Sta8on, LEX/SLSC/0060/1994Thepe22onerfiledanappealintheSCagainstthejudgementoftheHCdismissinghisappealagainsthisconvic2onandsentenceby the Magistrate for certain offences on two counts, Firstly,givingfalseevidenceinPrimaryCourtandsecondly,inten2onallyinsul2ng theMagistrate in the courseof the sameproceedings.The SC held that neither the reports to Court nor the chargesheet gives any par2culars of the acts said to have cons2tutedthecontempt. ItwasalsosubmiPedthattheproceedingswhichculminated in the convic2on are unlawful in that the appellantwasnotgivena fairopportunitytomeettheallega2onsagainsthim. The Supreme Court held that as the charge sheet did notcontainpar2cularsoftheallegedoffenceandtherecorddoesnotshowthattheappellantwasgivenanyfurtherinforma2onoranopportunityofdefendinghimself,hebeingdeprivedofafairtrial,contemptproceedingsare invalidduetothenonobservanceofprinciplesofnaturaljus2ce.

Govindarajah Vs. A>orney-General LEX/SLSC/0064/1994G a witness at a criminal trial, immediately aeer hegaveevidence,washeldguiltyforgivingfalseevidenceandofcontempt.TheMagistratedealtsentencedGto3 months' RI. On appeal, the HC upheld theMagistrate’s order, but reduced the sentence. Onappeal, the SC held that the Magistrate neithercommunicatedtheessenceoftheaccusa2ontoGnorgave him an opportunity to furnish an explana2on;instead, proceeded to convict and sentence him. SCheld this is a clearbreachof theprinciplesofnaturaljus2ce and set aside the orders of the HC and theMagistrate'sCourt.

Rajeshwar Singh Vs. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors.,2014(1)SCALE401R, AssistantDirector of ED and inves2ga2ng officer of the 2Gscam casemonitored by the SC, when sent summons to RoyunderPreven2onofMoneyLaunderingAct(2002)wasinturnsentques2onnairebythereporterofnewschannelownedbyRoyaskinghimabouthisassetsandhispreviouscasesinwhichhe was already exonerated. SC restrained Sahara from airingany program based on the ques2onnaire. SC issued a showcauseno2ce toRoy forhis channel airing theTVprogramme.Roy ques2oned the maintainability of the pe22on on thegrounds that the permission of the AG was not obtained,nature of content whether civil or criminal not specified andlastlyhewasnotmadeawareof therestraintorder issuedbythecourtagainst theTVprogram.SCheld that thepe22on isperfectly maintainable as the court has cons2tu2onalobliga2ontoexaminewhetherRoy isaPemp2ngtoderail theinves2ga2onwhichisbeingmonitoredbythecourt.

ContemptofCommission

whethercontemptofcourt

SubramanianSwamyVs.ArunShourie,AIR2014SC3020TheContemptPe22onarosefromtheeditorialpublishedinIndianExpress (respondent) by the name "If shame had survived". ASupremeCourtJudge(KuldipSingh)wasappointedasChairmanofEnquiryCommission.SomescandalousremarkswerepublishedinnewspaperagainsttheCommission.TheIssuebeforetheSupremeCourt is, when a signg Supreme Court Judge is appointed as aCommissionerbytheCentralGovernmentdoeshecarrywithhimallthepowersandjurisdic2onoftheSupremeCourt. Itwasheldthat Commission is not a Court for the purpose of Contempt ofCourts Act even though it is headed by a signg Supreme CourtJudge. It is a fact-finding body to enable the appropriateGovernmenttodecideas tothecourseofac2ontobe followed.SuchCommissionisnotrequiredtoadjudicateupontherightsofthe par2es and has no adjudicatory func2ons.Meaning ofword"Court"suggeststhattheCourtisanins2tu2onwhichhaspowertoregulatelegalrightsbythedeliveryofdefinitejudgments,andto enforce its orders by legal sanc2ons and if its procedure isjudicialincharacterinsuchmaPersasthetakingofevidenceandthe administra2on of oath, then it is a court. So, the ContemptPe22onwasdismissed.

Contempttoremedycorporate

wrongs

Securi8esandExchangeBoardofIndia(SEBI)andOrs.Vs.SaharaIndiaRealEstateCorpn.Ltd.andOrs.2015(7)SCALE173Sahara India Real Estate Corpora2on Limited and Sahara Housing InvestmentCorpora2onLimitedinvitedandclaimedtohavecollecteddepositsfromgeneralpublic in the form of 'Op2onal Fully Conver2ble Debentures' (OFCD). SEBIdirectedSaharasnot toofferOFCDsor invitesubscrip2on inanymanner itwasnotlegallypermissible.TheBombayHighCourtdismissedthepe22onofSaharaand directed the company and its directors to jointly and severely refund theamountcollectedby themalongwith interest@15%perannum.Aggrievedbytheseorders, SaharasapproachedSATwhichdeclined to interfereanddirectedSaharas to refund the amount within 6 weeks. Against the order of SAT, anappealwaspreferredbySaharasintheSC.TheSCmaintainedtheordersofSEBIandSATwithadirec2ontodeposittheamountwithSEBIwithin3months.TheSaharas produced demand draes of 5120 crores and were further directed todepositthebalanceof17,400croreswithSEBI intwoinstallments.However,asthe balance amount was not deposited, it resulted in filing of the contemptpe22ons.TheSCissuednon-bailablewarrantsMr.SubrataRoyforhisproduc2onand direc2ng personal presence of the other three Directors in the Court. TheCourt commiPed three out of four contemnors to judicial custody. The Courtpassedorderofbailonthecondi2onthatthecontemnorsdeposit10,000croresi.e.5000croresincashandbalanceof5000croresintheformofbankguaranteeofana2onalizedbank.InpursuancetothistheapplicantssubmiPedaformatofguaranteewhichwas accepted by the Supreme Court and the applicantsweregranted2metodepositthebalanceamount.

E.Bapanaiahvs.K.S.Raju(2015)1SCC451The Respondent, K.S. Raju was Promoter Director of M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited,Hyderabad which issued adver2sement invi2ng deposits promising good returns andcollected huge sum from the public. The present Appellant deposited 40,00,000/- hopingthatitwoulddoublewithin45monthsasprojectedintheadver2sement.Theamountwasdueforrepaymentonmaturityon28.4.2001.However,NFLfailedtore-paythesumtothedepositorsandanapplica2onwasfiledbeforetheCLBforrepaymentininstalmentswithin48months.TheCLBallowed2metoNFLonrequestofitsdirectors.Duringpendencyoftheapplica2ontheDirectors, includingK.S.Raju,gaveundertakingtotheCLBthattheywouldabidebytheschemeandpayofftheamountduetodepositors.ButthePromoterDirectoranditsgroupcompaniesfiledappealagainsttheorderofCLB.Inappeals,theCompanygaveanundertakingtopayhalfoffirstyear'sen2tlementofthepresentAppellantby20.4.2002.However, no amount was paid. Therefore, contempt pe22on was filed by the presentAppellantbefore theHighCourt forviola2onof theordersof theCLB.Acounteraffidavitwas filed by K.S. Raju before the High Court sta2ng that he had lee NFL long back andtherefore he is not responsible tomake repayment of the deposits made to NFL. SingleJudgeheld thatNFL and its PromoterDirector, K.S. Raju, are guiltyof contemptof court.Then,K.S.Rajufiledappealbefore theDivisionBenchwhere theappealsof theDirectorswere allowed. An appeal was therefore filed by E. Bapanaiah before the Supreme Courtagainstthejudgmentofthedivisionbench.ThecourtobservedthataeergivingundertakingbeforeCLB, K.S. Raju submiPedhis resigna2on in September, 2000,which clearly reflectsthat it was done to save himself and his company from making the repayment to E.Bapanaiah. The Supreme Court held K.S. Raju guilty of Contempt of Court and the orderpassedbytheSingle Judgeto theextentofconvic2onandsentenceagainstK.S.Rajuwasrestored.However sixty dayswas allowed toK.S. Raju to repay the en2re amount to theAppellantasdirectedbyCLB.

Contemptforcompliancewithlabourlaws

GauriShankarPd.Raivs.SajalChakrobortyandOrs.(2015)8SCC163TheRespondent-employeeswereappointedintheyear1981tothepostsof JuniorEngineers in theRuralDevelopmentDepartment in the stateofBihar. Subsequently, they were appointed in 1987 on ad-hoc temporarybasisasAssistantEngineers.Theyhavebeenworkinginthesaidpostsformorethan29yearsfromthedateoffirstappointmentasJuniorEngineers.The employeeswere issued show cause no2ces as towhy their servicesshouldnotbeterminatedonthegroundoftheirappointmenttothepostsbeing illegal/invalid. Against this, the employees approached the HighCourt.Theregulariza2onofserviceof theemployeeswasorderedbythesingle judgewhichwas later confirmedby thedivisionbenchof theHighCourt. In appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants were directed toimplement the orders of the Division Bench and to con2nue theRespondentsintheirservicesandextendallbenefitsashavebeengrantedbyitinthatjudgment.But,theappellantsbyano2fica2onregularizedtheservices of the employees from 1987 and not from 1981. The SupremeCourt did not held the respondents guilty ofwillful disobedience as theyhavepar2allyfulfilledthedirec2ongivenbythisCourtaswellastheHighCourt.Thecourtgaveanotheropportunity to the respondents tocomplywiththedirec2onofthecourtintoto.

KamilHassanVs.FairlineGarments(Interna8onal)Ltd.andTwoOthers,LEX/SLSC/0013/1990K complained to the Commissioner of Labour abouttermina2onofhisemploymentasaPurchasingOfficerbyF incontraven2onoftheTermina2onofEmploymentofWorkmen(Special Provisions) Act, 1971. Commissioner aeer inquiry,directed F to reinstate K in his employment as PurchasingOfficer,withoutabreakinservice,andtopayhimbackwages.F applied to the Court of Appeal for Cer2orari to quash theorderandtheorderwasquashed.TheSupremeCourtrestoredthe order of the Labour Commissioner and directed F to re-instate K in the post as its Purchasing Officer with all backwagesfromthedateofhisnon-employmenttothedateofhisreinstatement. Thereaeer, K addressed several lePers to FclaimingbackwagesandFthroughlePerexpressedinabilitytopay the total sum immediately due to serious liquidityproblem. The SC finding nomaterial or document to suggestthat F had the capacity to pay or that therewaswillful non-complianceordefianceonthepartofF,heldFcannotbeheldguiltyforcontemptofCourt.

MalathiDas(Retd.)NowP.B.MahishyandOrsVs.SureshandOrs.,2014CriLJ753About 129 daily wagers and other contractual employees serving indifferentdepartmentsapproachedHCfortheirregulariza2on.Thecourtdirected for their regulariza2on and pursuant to the same, videGovernment Order dated 18.04.2006, 55 out of 129 employees wereregularized while the claim of the remaining 74 employees were notrespondedto.Accordingly, theContemptPe22onwasheardonbehalfof74employeesandclosedbytheHCbygran2ngthestatedepartments8weeks'2metopassappropriateontheclaimforregulariza2on.Asnoac2on was ini2ated pursuant to the order of the HC, the ContemptPe22onwas lodged by the 74 Respondents before the SC. During thependency of the contempt pe22on, regulariza2on claim of 74 wererejected on the ground that they do not fulfill the condi2ons forregulariza2on laid downby SC inUmadevi andOrs. Judgment. The SCheldthateventhoughthestandtakeninrefusingregulariza2oncannotbe admiPed, as the said stand stems from their percep2on andunderstanding of the decision inUmadevi. Hence they cannot be heldliableforcontempt.

Whethermererepor2ng

Contemptofcourt?

InRe:GarumunigeTilakaratne,LEX/SLSC/0005/1991RwascorrespondentoftheNewspaper,butnotanemployee.Rwascharged with having unlawfully and improperly caused thepublica2onofanewsiteminthenewspaper,totheeffectthataMPhad stated, in a speech that the Presiden2al Elec2on pe22on hadalreadybeenproved and that if samedid not succeed itwould betheendofjus2ceinthiscountry.TheSupremeCourtheldRguiltyofcontemptonthereasoningthatRoughttohavehadtheforesighttoseethatthisreportwaslikelytocauseprejudicetothecasebeforethe court and to the administra2on of jus2ce as a con2nuingprocess. The court held that thesewords contained an imputa2onthattheallega2onscontainedintheaforesaidpe22onhavealreadybeen proved and that if the pe22oner is denied success in thatpe22on,itwouldamounttoatotalnega2onofjus2ceinthiscountryandtherebyRcommiPedcontemptoftheCourt.Courtfurtherheldthat to establish a chargeof contempt it is notnecessary toprovethat R intended a par2cularmeaning or effect; inten2on is not aningredient, though oeen an aggrava2ng circumstance, relevant topunishment. The Court further held that an inten2on to causedisrepute or disrespect to the Supreme Court or any Court isirrelevantbecauseallthatisrequiredisthepublica2on.

HewamanneVs.DeSilvaandAnother,LEX/SLSC/0001/1983A Special Presiden2al Commission comprising of Jus2ce J.G.T.Weeraratne, Jus2ce S.SharvanandaandJus2ceK.C.E.deAlwiswasappointedwhichrecommendedtheimposi2onofcivicdisabili2esonMrsSirimaBandaranaike,formerPrimeMinisterandatthat2mememberofParliamentandonFelixR.DiasBandaranaiketherebyexpellingMrsSirimaBandaranaikefromtheHouse.Thereaeer,Mr.FelixR.DiasBandaranaike ins2tutedproceedingsfortheissueofawritofQuoWarrantoagainstMr.Jus2ceK.C.E.deAlwis,amemberoftheCommission,onthegroundthathehadbecomedisqualifiedfromac2ngasamemberoftheCommissionbyreasonofafinancialtransac2onwithoneA.H.M.Fowzie,aformerMayorofColombo,whoseconductwas a subject of inves2ga2on by the Commission. In thismaPer, writ of QuoWarrantowasissuedagainstJus2ceK.C.E.deAlwis,prohibi2nghimfromfunc2oninganyfurtherasamemberoftheCommission.Subsequently,Jus2ceK.C.E.deAlwismaderepresenta2onstothePresidentallegingbias against himself andasked for an inquiry. Thereaeer, aCabinetdecision that theMinister of Jus2ce would move a Resolu2on in Parliament for the appointment of a SelectCommiPee of Parliament to inves2gate and report on the allega2onsmade byMr K.C.E. deAlwiswasmade.Theproposedmo2onwasincludedintheOrderPaperofParliament.The 1st respondent, the editor of the newspaper “Daily News” and the 2nd respondent, theowner, printer and publisher of the newspaper jointly and severally printed and published anewsitemcarriedonthefrontpageundertheheadings“SelectCommiPeeprobeofMr.K.C.E.de Alwis’ representa2ons” and “F.D.B.’s pleadings prepared in Judges’ Chambers”. It was averba2mreproduc2onof themo2oncontained in theorderpaperof theParliament.The1strespondent in viewof thepublic interest and concern in the subjectmaPerand thepeople'srighttoknowthatsuchaResolu2onwasbeforeParliamentdecidedtopublishthisnewsitem.The court held that the publica2on of a parliamentary mo2on impliedly reflec2ng on theconductofaJudgewouldholdtherespondentsguiltyofcontemptofcourt. However, itwasobserved that the respondents did not have a deliberate inten2on of interfering with theadministra2onofjus2ce.Thus,nopunishmentwasimposedonthemandtheyweredischarged.

Differencebetweencivilandcriminalcontempt

O’BRIENREGINAUKSC2/4/2014

RestraintordermadeagainstXundersec2on41of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to prevent thedisposal of realizable assets during criminalinves2ga2on against him. X held guilty forcontemptofcourtandsentencedto15monthsprison sentence for disobeying this order.Thereaeer X fled toUSA.Hewas extradited toUK for punishing him under Proceeds of CrimeAct 2002. Q arose – can X be punished forcontempt of court as the same was notmen2onedasthebasisofhisextradi2on?

O’BRIENREGINAUKSC2/4/2014

•  POCAdoesnotprovidethatitisanoffencetodisobeyorobstructarestraintorderorareceivershiporder,buttheCrownCourthasaninherentpowertotreatsuchbehaviourascontemptofcourt,forwhichitmayimposepunishmentundersec2on45oftheSeniorCourtsAct1981.

•  Thereisadis2nc2onlongrecognisedinEnglishlawbetween"civilcontempt",i.econductwhichisnotinitselfacrimebutwhichispunishablebythecourtinordertoensurethatitsordersareobserved,and"criminalcontempt".

O’BRIENREGINAUKSC2/4/2014

Breachofanordermadeinthecourseoflegalproceedingsmayresultinpunishmentofthepersonagainstwhomtheorderwasmadeasaformofcontempt.However,acontemptofthatkinddoesnotcons2tuteacriminaloffence.Althoughthepenaltycontainsapuni2veelement,itsprimarypurposeistomaketheorderofthecourteffec2ve.Apersonwhocommitsthistypeofcontemptdoesnotacquireacriminalrecord.

O’BRIENREGINAUKSC2/4/2014

•  Acriminalcontemptisconductwhichgoesbeyondmerenon-compliancewithacourtorderorundertakingandinvolvesaseriousinterferencewiththeadministra2onofjus2ce.Examplesincludephysicallyinterferingwiththecourseofatrial,threateningwitnessesorpublishingmateriallikelytoprejudiceafairtrial.

TurnervRogers564US1(2011)

TheUSSupremeCourthadtodecidewhethertheDueProcessClauseoftheUSCons2tu2ongrantedanindigentdefendantarighttostate-appointedcounselincivilcontemptproceedingswhichmightleadtohisimprisonment.Jus2ceBreyer,atpage8,saidthatcivilcontemptdiffersfromcriminalcontemptinthatitseeksonlytocoercethedefendanttodowhatthecourthadorderedhimpreviouslytodo.

ContemptofScandalizingthe

court?

IntheUK,AustraliaandNewZealand,thecommonlaw test of liability requires a substan2al risk, asopposed to a remote possibility, that publicconfidence in the judicial system would beundermined. Inprac2ce,however,at least in theUK, there are few reported cases punishing forScandalising the court in these countries. There donotappeartobeanyreportsofthecourtsexercisingthepowertopunishforscandalisingintheUKsinceColsey in1931. Ina1968case,MetropolitanPoliceCommissioner, ex parte Blackburn, the court heldthat a robust aPack on a decision of the Court ofAppealdidnotcons2tuteacontempt.In1985,LordDiplock, in secretary of State for Defence v.Guardian Newspapers Ltd., considered the offencetobe‘virtuallyobsolescent’.

InCanada,thecommonlawprinciplehasbeensubstan2allychangedtobringitinlinewiththeguaranteeoffreedomofexpression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. R.v.Koptyo, involved the following comments by a lawyer infrontofthepublicandmediarepresenta2ves,aeer losingacase:“Thisdecision isamockeryof Jus2ce. It s2nkstohighhell. It says that it is okay to break the law and you areimmune so long as someone above you said to do it. Mr.DowsonandIhavelostfaithinthejudicialsystemtorenderjus2ce….We’rewonderingwhatisthepointofappealingandcon2nuing this charade of the courts in this countrywhicharewarpedinfavourofprotec2ngthepolice.Thecourtsandthe RCMP are s2cking so close together you’d think theywereputtogetherwithKrazyGlue.”Despite theextremenatureof thesecomments,madebyalawyer,thecourtheldthatnoliabilityshouldensue.

In a case before the European Court of HumanRights, De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, theapplicant journalistswerepenalized for severalar2clescri2cizingjudgesoftheAntwerpCourtofAppealforawardingcustodyofthechildreninadivorce case to a father accused of incest andabuse. The European Court held that the caserestric2on on freedom of expression was not“necessaryinademocra2csociety“becausethestatements were not excessive and there waspropor2onally:

IntheSouthAfricancaseofStatev.VanNiekerk,anacademichadimputedracialbiastojudgesinthe applica2on of the death penalty, but thecourtheldthatthisdidnotestablishacontempt.Classen J. reasoned: “B]efore a convic2on canresult the act complained of must not only bewillfulandcalculatedtobringintocontempt butmustalsobemadewiththeinten2onofbringingtheJudgesintheirjudicialcapacityintocontemptor cas2ng suspicion on the administra2on ofJus2ce.”

HetRamBeniwalandOrs.RaghuveerSinghandOrs.MANU/SC/1343/2016

Aprominent tradeunionac2vistwasmurderedon18/12/2000. Someof theaccusedwere granted an2cipatory bails by HC of Rajasthan. Appellants were advocates whoaddressedlargegatheringofpartyworkersagainstgrantofthisan2cipatorybail.Theirstatementswere•  Thereare2typesofjus2ceinthecourts.AthiefofRs100cannotgetbail,ifthelathi

ishit then the courtsask for the statementsofwitnesses&diarybutMiglani andGurdayalSinghcommiPedthemurdereventhenan2cipatorybailhadbeengrantedonanapplica2onwithoutdiary.

•  Thegeneralpublichaslostconfidenceinlaw&jus2ce.•  AllaroundthereisRuleofrichpeoplewhetheritisbureaucracy/judiciary.•  Sarpanchtoldthattherewasinfluenceofmoneybehindthean2cipatorybailofthe

occurred.Advocate general gave consent to respondent to ini2ate contempt proceedings on16/1/2002.Neverthelesshiscontemptpe22onwasadmiPedandappellantswereheldguilty of contempt and sentenced to 2month SI and fine of Rs. 2000 each. The SC inappeal appointed AC to assist the court. Though AC did nothing but only reiteratedlegalprovisionsandtheposi2onofrespondentwhofiledcontemptpe22onintheHC.TheSCaffirmedHCorderwithmodifica2onthatonly2mewouldsufficeforcommiPedandappellantsneednotbejailedinviewof15yearsthathavepassedsincethedateofcommissionofoffence.

BalKishanGirivs.StateofU.P,(2014)7SCC280–WhenthoseaccusedofmurderofbrotherandnephewofBapplied for bail before the High Court of Allahabad, BsubmiPed an applica2on to the CJ of Allahabad HC andChairman, Bar Council of U.P. alleging that accused wereclosely related and had links with the Judges of the HighCourtincludingJus2ceS.K.Jainwhohadearlierservedasajudicial officer in the district Court. Apprehension againstJus2ceS.K. Jainthathewould favourtheaccusedpersonsin gegng bail was expressed. HC issued a show causeno2cetoBastowhythecriminalcontemptproceedingsbenot ini2ated against him. B submiPed an uncondi2onalapology and stated hewas in greatmental tension as hisnephewwasmurdered.SCheldthatallega2onsagainsttheJudgeswereseriousandsufficienttounderminedignityofcourt. Itwasthedutyoftheappellantnottodemeananddisgracethemajestyofjus2cedispensedbycourtoflaw.

ContemptproceedingsagainstBar

In Re: ProceedingsAgainst AnA>orney-At-Law For ContemptOfCourt,LEX/SLSC/0034/1992Anapplica2onforcertainviola2onsoffundamentalrightsofsomeclientwasfiledbyaPorneyon9/3/92withatypedwriPenmo2onthatthecasebecalledinopenCourton16/3/92andahandwriPenendorsementonthefaceofthepe22on.Whenhisapplica2onwascalledon16/3/92,aPorneysubmiPedthat ithadbeenincludedinthat day's list by an error, and that hehadbeen informedby theofficer-in-chargeoftheCourtsBranchintheRegistrythatitwasinfact listed for 17/3/92. Thereupon he was shown handwriPenendorsement and asked whether it had been made by him.APorneywithout answering, immediately altered the date "16th"so that it then read "17th".Uponbeingques2onedwhyhemadesuchaltera2on,hepleaded ignorance,mistake,misunderstanding.The SC held him guilty of contempt and observed that a counsel,advocate,orpleader,appearing foraparty to li2ga2on, canclaimnoimmunityfromtheopera2onofthelawofcontempt.

AmitChanchalJhavs.RegistrarHighCourtofDelhi,2014(13)SCALE750

Male advocate of 7 years standing abused a lady advocate duringproceedingsbefore JointRegistrar in theHighCourtofDelhi.DBof theHCheld that advocate interfered in judicial proceedings and obstructedadministra2on of jus2ce and convicted him for criminal contempt. Againstthisorder,anapplica2onforrecalltheorderonthegroundthatthecasedidnot fall in the defini2on of 'criminal contempt' Under Sec2on 2(c) of theContempt of Courts Act- was made. Further defence was taken that theac2onwasnotwillful as itwas at the spurof themoment. Further, regretand remorse was expressed without any loss of 2me. Same was rejected.Advocatethereaeer,filedtheappealbeforetheSCdispu2ngoccurrenceofincidentatall,incorrectrecordingoffactsbytheJointRegistraroftheHC.HefurtherfiledAffidavittenderinguncondi:onalandunqualifiedapologytotheladyadvocateinrespectoftheincident.TheSCheldthattheapologywasnotsincereenoughtobeacceptedsoastosetasidetheconvic2on.Eventhoughthepowerofcontemptshouldnotbe lightly ini2ated,par2cularlyagainstalawyer,butthefactremainsthatexerciseofsuchpowerbecomesnecessaryin the interest of public and also in the interest of due administra2on ofjus2ce.

In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal Advocate,AIR2014SC850The SC found that Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Advocate-on-Record(AOR)hadfiledlargenumberofcasesindifferentcourtsbutdoesnotappearinthosecases.Hisrefusaltoappearinthecourttoexplainthefactualcontroversy ledtodismissalofmaPerbeforethe court. The SC thereupon issued a show causeno2cetothesaidAORastowhyhisnameshouldnotberemovedfromtheregisterofAOR,ashisconductwas 'unbecoming' of an AOR. The Supreme Courtheld that the conduct of AOR was not worthpardoningbutconsideringthefactandcircumstancesinvolved, his conduct is censured with warning tobehave in future and to appear in court in all thecaseswhereverhehasenteredappearance.