Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2613 OF 2012
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.29392 OF 2010)
CHAIR.WEST BEN.ADMIN.TRIBUNAL.& ANR ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SK.MONOBBOR HOSSAIN & ANR ...RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta
in C.P.A.N. No. 50 of 2010 arising out of
W.P.S.T. No.47 of 2009 dated 19.05.2010. By
JUDGMENT
the impugned judgment and order, the learned
Judges of the High Court, though having
accepted the unconditional apology offered by
the contemnors, have passed some remarks
against the members of the State
Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by these
observations, the appellants are before us in
this civil appeal.
1
3) A Contempt Petition came to be filed by the
petitioner in W.P.S.T. No.47 of 2009. The
allegation in the complaint was that though
the High Court had directed the Tribunal to
advance the hearing of the application filed
before it, the same had not been complied with
by the Tribunal and had not passed appropriate
orders on merits of the application filed by
the petitioner.
4) On entertaining the Contempt Petition, the
Court had issued notices to the members of the
State Administrative Tribunal. They had
offered their explanation, explaining the so
called lapses on their part and further, had
JUDGMENT
offered unconditional apology by stating that,
if for any reason, the court comes to the
conclusion that there is some disobedience of
the directions issued by the Court, the same
may be condoned in the light of the
unconditional apology offered. They also
undertook to follow the directions that they
had allegedly flouted as soon as the Tribunal
2
resumes sittings after the summer vacations.
5) We find that the High Court graciously accepts
the unconditional apology offered, but states
in its order that the members of the Tribunal,
who are former Judges of the High Court, ought
not to have disrespected the directions issued
by the High Court and while saying so, certain
remarks are also made against the performance
of the Judges as members of the Tribunal. The
appeal is filed before this Court for
expunging those remarks and observations.
6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties
to the lis.
7) This Court in R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik ,
JUDGMENT
(2000) 4 SCC 400, has observed:
“7. We may reiterate that the weapon of
contempt is not to be used in abundance
or misused……Discretion given to the
court is to be exercised for
maintenance of the court’s dignity and
majesty of law……”
8) In Suresh Chandra Poddar v. Dhani Ram , (2002)
1 SCC 766, it is held:
3
“1. This is an instance of how a
Tribunal vested with the powers to
punish for contempt of court became
oversensitive in using such powers.
Time and again this Court has cautioned
as to when and in what circumstances
contempt of court jurisdiction is to be
exercised. Such a power is not intended
to be exercised as a matter of course.
Courts should not feel unduly touchy
when they are told that the orders have
not been implemented forthwith. If the
court is told that the directions or
the order of the court has been
complied with subsequently, albeit
after receipt of notice of contempt, we
expect the courts to show judicial
grace and magnanimity in dealing with
the action for contempt.”
JUDGMENT
9)
In P.K. Singh v. S.N. Kanungo , (2010) 4 SCC
504, this Court opined:
“21. After reaching the conclusion that
the violation is neither willful nor
deliberate, the High Court should have
at once dropped the contempt
proceedings and could not have accepted
the unconditional apology tendered by
the appellant nor could have imposed
costs on the appellant. In any view of
4
the matter, the High Court, after
accepting the unconditional apology
tendered by the appellant, should not
have imposed costs on the appellant for
negligence and reckless manner in which
it had allegedly acted in the instant
case.”
10) The tenor of the dicta of this Court on the
topic is crystal clear. This Court has, time
and again, asserted that the contempt
jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts is only for
the purpose of upholding the majesty of the
judicial system that exists. While exercising
this power, the Courts must not be hyper-
sensitive or swung by emotions, but must act
judiciously. In Dinabandhu Sahu v. The State
JUDGMENT
Orissa of (1972) 4 SCC 761 , this Court very
pertinently observed that “(i)it is no part
of the judicial function to be vindictive or
allow any personal or other considerations to
enter in the discharge of its functions…”
11) With this background, let us examine the
appeal presently before us.
5
12) We have perused the orders passed by the High
Court while disposing of the Contempt
Petition. In our view, there is some
justification for the High Court to have
initiated the contempt proceedings against the
appellants, but at the same time the High
Court, in order to maintain its dignity and
majesty of law, could have avoided making some
of the remarks and observations against the
functioning of the members of the Tribunal.
The Judges are also mortals and sometimes, the
behaviour of another mortal may not be
palatable to them. It is in this type of
situation they are expected to rise to the
occasion and avoid passing disparaging
JUDGMENT
remarks. This would reflect their learning
magnanimity and maturity, particularly when
they accept the unconditional apology offered
by the contemnors.
6
13) Accordingly, we allow this appeal and expunge
all those remarks/ observations made by
learned Judges in the course of their order.
Ordered accordingly.
...................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
...................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 29, 2012.
JUDGMENT
7