Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.118 OF 2007
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.19924 OF 2006
C. Elumalai & Ors. ….Petitioners
Versus
A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr. ….
Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Alleging violation of the order passed by this Court, the present
contempt petition has been filed. Stand of the petitioners is that by order
dated 19.3.2007 in SLP(C ) No. 19924 of 2006, this court had directed that
the High Court which was considering CS No. 597 of 2006 in the original
side shall make an effort to dispose of the suit within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of the order. It was also directed that till completion
of the suit the parties shall not create any third party right. It is the case of
the petitioners that in clear violation of this court’s order, third party rights
have been created. Several affidavits have been filed by the respondent
No.1-alleged contemnor No.1. But no response has been filed by the
respondent No.2- alleged contemnor No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there has been
conscious violation of the orders passed by this court. The unconditional
apologies offered at various stages are intended to cover up the violation.
Even after filing of the first affidavit containing alleged unconditional
apology, the subsequent conduct shows continued violation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-contemnor No.1 submitted
that the factual scenario clearly shows that there was never any intention to
flout the orders of this court. Rather, the respondent No.1-contemnor No.1
2
is a victim of circumstances and therefore the unconditional apology offered
should be accepted.
4. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the
earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence
and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time
when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it
ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.
5. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their
offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended
to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of
U.P. [1984 (3) SCC 405]:
“We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the “slap-say
sorry- and forget” school of thought in administration of
contempt jurisprudence. Saying “sorry” does not make
the slapper taken the slap smart less upon the said
hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be
paper apology and expression of sorrow should come
from the heart and nor from the pen. For it is one thing
to “say” sorry – it is another to “feel” sorry.”
3
6. The above position was highlighted in T.V. Godavarman
Thirumalpad v. Ashok Khot and Another [2006(5) SCC 1]
7. The next question is whether for disobedience of the order passed by
this Court, the respondents/contemners are liable to punishment? In this
connection, we may refer to some of the legal provisions. Article 129 of the
Constitution declares this Court (Supreme Court) to be "a Court of Record
having all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for the
contempt of itself". Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 enacts that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated,
the Court may, commit the person guilty of disobedience of an order of
interim injunction to civil prison and direct his property be attached and
sold. Rule 2A of Order XXXIX as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) reads thus:
2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction--
(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or
other order made under Page 3178 rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of
any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the
order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the
order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is
transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such
disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such
person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not
4
exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court
directs his release.
(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force
for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the
disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be
sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such
compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay
the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
8. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Ors. (2003) 11
SCC 1, this Court had an occasion to consider the concept of `wilful
disobedience' of an order of the Court. It was stated that `wilful' means an
act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do
something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something
the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey
or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with
evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act
or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case.
5
9. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [1999 (7)
SCC 569] it was held that for holding a person to have committed contempt,
it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or
order of the Court. But it was indicated that even negligence and
carelessness may amount to contempt. It was further observed that issuance
of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching
consequences, and as such, they should be resorted to only when a clear
case of wilful disobedience of the court's order is made out. A petitioner
who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or
contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if such allegation is
proved, contempt can be said to have been made out, not otherwise. The
Court noted that power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain
effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of
justice.
10. In the celebrated decision of Attorney General v. Times Newspaper
Ltd. 1974 AC 273 : (1973) 3 All ER 54 : (1973) 3 WLR 298; Lord Diplock
stated:
6
“There is an element of public policy in punishing civil
contempt, since the administration of justice would be
undermined if the order of any court of law could be
disregarded with impunity.”
11. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. (2002 (4)
SCC 21) , this Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been
introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the
administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear
and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation,
disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court.
There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court
orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own
understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. It
was observed that power to punish a person for contempt is undoubtedly a
powerful weapon in the hands of Judiciary but that by itself operates as a
string of caution and cannot be used unless the Court is satisfied beyond
doubt that the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the order of
the Court. The power under the Act must be exercised with utmost care and
caution and sparingly in the larger interest of the society and for proper
administration of justice delivery system. Mere disobedience of an order is
7
not enough to hold a person guilty of civil contempt. The element of
willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within
the meaning of the Act.
12. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh
and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 374, this Court considered several cases and
observed that wilful and deliberate act of violation of interim order passed
by a competent Court would amount to contempt of Court.
13. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a person for
contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should
not be taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power but the
duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty
of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration of
justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a Court, it is
required to take strict view, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent
weapon of contempt.
14. The above position was highlighted in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai &
Anr. V. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors. [2008(10) SCALE 349].
8
15. On consideration of various aspects, we are satisfied that there has
been a wilful and deliberate violation of this Court’s order. We, therefore, in
exercise of the court’s jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of
India impose exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/- on each of the contemnors to
be deposited to the registry of the High Court within a period of eight
weeks. On deposit being made, the amount shall be transferred to the
National Legal Services Authority. In case of non payment, the contemnors
shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Any third party
right created after order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP No. 19924 of 2006 is of no
consequence and stands set aside.
………………………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………………J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
March 20, 2009
9