IN RE PERRY KANSAGRA vs. .

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION SUO­MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3 OF 2021 IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA                .....CONTEMNOR J U D G M E N T PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. 1. This decision on Sentencing will be in continuation of our judgment   dated   11.07.2022   by   which   Perry   Kansagra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘contemnor’) was convicted for acts of civil as well as criminal contempt of this Court. For passing the   consequential   order   of   Sentence,   we   adjourned   the   case 1 several   times   and   after   being   satisfied   that   sufficient opportunity was given to the contemnor, we proceeded to hear the   learned   Senior   Counsel   Ms.   Sonia   Mathur   for   Smriti Kansagra (wife of the contemnor and mother of their son Aditya) and the Additional Solicitor General and reserved the case for Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2022.11.16 13:59:06 IST Reason: 1  After the judgment dated 11.07.2002 the case was listed on 22.07.2022, 27.09.2022,  30.09.2022, 17.10.2022 and 21.10.2022. Page 1 of 32 orders. By this judgment, we will consider and pass appropriate orders of Sentence.  2. The   facts   necessary   for   the   disposal   of   this   order   may briefly be stated as under. The contemnor married Smriti, an Indian citizen, on 29.07.2007 in New Delhi.  Initially, the couple stayed in Nairobi, Kenya but Smriti returned to India in 2009, and the couple was blessed with a son ­ Aditya, on 02.12.2009 in New Delhi. Except for a brief period, when the couple went to Kenya in 2012, Aditya always stayed with Smriti in Delhi. We may   mention   here   itself   that   this   position   continued   till   the custody of Aditya was handed over to the contemnor for moving him to Kenya as per the orders of this Court. The subsequent incidents that led to the recall of the orders of this Court and the judgment of conviction for contempt are all part of the Court proceedings, which unfolded as follows. A Guardianship Petition No. 53 of 2012 was filed by the 3. contemnor before the District Court, Saket, for declaration of legal guardianship. After the contest, the petition came to be Page 2 of 32 allowed by order dated 12.01.2018. Smriti challenged the said order before the High Court of Delhi. By its judgment dated 25.02.2020, the High Court affirmed the decision of the District Court granting custody of Aditya to his father, the contemnor. By a separate order passed on the same date, the High Court recorded   the   willingness   of   the   contemnor   and   his   mother, holding an Indian passport, to ensure compliance with the order of the Family Court granting continued access and visitation rights   to   Smriti.   The   direction   of   the   High   Court   that   the contemnor   shall   also   file   an   undertaking   before   the   Indian Embassy that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts was complied with, and it is part of the court record. 4. Smriti challenged the decision of the High Court before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3559 of 2020.  The majority decision of this   Court,   while   affirming   the   findings   of   the   High   Court, disposed of the Civil Appeal on 28.10.2020 with the following observations: ­ “(a) To safeguard the rights and interest of Smriti, we have considered it necessary to direct Perry to Page 3 of 32 obtain a mirror order from the concerned court in Nairobi,   which   would   reflect   the   directions contained in this Judgment. (b) Given the large number of cases arising from transnational   parental   abduction   in   inter ­ country marriages, the English courts have issued protective measures   which   take   the   form   of   undertakings, mirror orders, and safe harbour orders, since there is no accepted international mechanism to achieve protective   measures.   Such   orders   are   passed   to safeguard the interest of the child who is in transit from one jurisdiction to another. The courts have found mirror orders to be the most effective way of achieving protective measures. (c) The primary jurisdiction is exercised by the court where the child has been ordinarily residing for a substantial period of time, and has conducted an elaborate enquiry on the issue of custody. The court may direct the parties to obtain a “mirror order” from the court where the custody of the child is being shifted. Such an order is ancillary or auxiliary in character, and supportive of the order passed by the court which has exercised primary jurisdiction over   the   custody   of   the   child.   In   International Family   Law,   it   is   necessary   that   jurisdiction   is exercised by only one court at a time. It would avoid a situation where conflicting orders may be passed by courts in two different jurisdictions on the same issue of custody of the minor child. These orders are passed keeping in mind the principle of comity of courts and public policy. The object of a mirror order is to safeguard the interest of the minor child in transit from one jurisdiction to another, and to ensure that both parents are equally bound in each State. The mirror order is passed to ensure that the courts of the country where the child is being shifted are aware of the arrangements which were made in the Page 4 of 32 country   where   he   had   ordinarily   been   residing. Such an order would also safeguard the interest of the parent who is losing custody, so that the rights of   visitation   and   temporary   custody   are   not impaired.” The Court, further directed as follows: ­ “(a) We direct Perry Kansagra to obtain mirror order from the concerned court in Nairobi to reflect the directions   contained   in   this   judgement,   within   a period of 2 weeks from the date of this judgment. A copy of the Order passed by the court in Nairobi must be filed before this Court; (b) After the mirror order is filed before this Court, Perry shall   deposit   a  sum  of  INR  1  Crore  in  the Registry of this Court, which shall be kept in an interest­bearing   fixed   deposit   account   (on   auto­ renewal basis), for a period of two years to ensure compliance   with   the   directions   contained   in   this judgment. If this Court is satisfied that Perry has discharged all   his   obligations   in   terms   of   the   aforesaid directions of this Court, the aforesaid amount shall be returned with interest accrued, thereon to the respondent; (c)   Perry will   apply   and   obtain   a   fresh   Kenyan passport   for   Aditya,   Smriti   will   provide   full   co­ operation,  and   not  cause   any  obstruction  in this behalf; (d) Within a week of the mirror order being filed before   this   Court,   Smriti   shall   provide   the   Birth Certificate and the Transfer Certificate from Delhi Public School, to enable Perry to secure admission of Aditya to a School in Kenya; Page 5 of 32 (e) Smriti will be at liberty to engage with Aditya on a suitable video­conferencing platform for one hour over the weekends; further, Aditya is a liberty to speak to his mother as and when he desires to do so; (f)   Smriti   would   be   provided   with   access   and visitation rights for 50% once in a year during the annual vacations of Aditya, either in New Delhi or Kenya,   wherever   she   likes,   after   due   intimation to Perry; (g) Perry will bear the cost of one trip in a year for a period of one week to Smriti and her mother to visit Aditya in Kenya during his vacations. The costs will cover the air fare and expenses for stay in Kenya; (h) Smriti will not be entitled to take Aditya out of Nairobi, Kenya without the consent of Perry; (i) We direct Perry and Smriti to file Undertakings before this Court, stating that they would abide and comply  with  the  directions   passed  by  this  Court without demur, within a period of one week from the date of this judgement. 21. As an interim measure, we direct that till such time that Perry is granted full custody of the child, he will be entitled to unsupervised visitation with overnight access during weekends when he visits India,   so   that   the   studies   of   Aditya   are   not disturbed. Perry and his parents would be required to deposit their passports before the Registrar of this Court during such period of visitation. After the visitation is over, the passports shall be returned to them forthwith. 22. This appeal shall be listed before the Court after a period of four weeks to ensure compliance with the aforesaid directions, and on being satisfied that all   the   afore­stated   directions   are   duly   complied Page 6 of 32 with, the custody of Aditya Vikram Kansagra shall be handed over by his mother Smriti Kansagra to the father Perry Kansagra.” Taking   note of certain specific requirements and also to 5. ensure smooth transition of Aditya’s custody in favour of the contemnor, yet another order was passed on 08.12.2020 with the following directions: ­ “A) Except for direction issued earlier in paragraph 20   of   this   Order,   and   matters   accepted   by   the learned counsel for the respondent, no orders are called for in respect of any of the directions sought for by the appellant. B) All the directions issued in paragraph 20 of the Judgment hold good, with the addition of the one issued in paragraph 20 of this Order. C)   A   further   affidavit   shall   be   filed   by   the respondent within three days of this Order, that he shall   abide   by   this   Order   and   the   additional direction issued in paragraph 20 of this Order. D)  The   respondent  is  not   required   to  obtain  any fresh   Mirror   Order   in   respect   of   the   aforesaid additional   direction,   before   Aditya   is   taken   to Kenya, and it shall be sufficient if an appropriate application   to   have   this   Order   registered,   in   the same manner as the Judgment was registered, is preferred   within   two   weeks   of   Aditya   reaching Kenya,   and   the   copy   of   such   registration   is thereafter filed in this Court at the earliest. E)   After   filing   of   the   further   affidavit   as   stated above, the respondent shall be at liberty to take Page 7 of 32 Aditya   to   Kenya   as   directed   earlier   in   the Judgment.” 6. After   the   above­referred   orders   dated   28.10.2020   and 08.12.2020,  followed  by  custody  of  Aditya to  the  contemnor, what really transpired came to light with the filing of M.A. No. 1167   of   2012   by   Smriti   complaining   of   total   and   absolute disobedience of this Court’s Orders.  7. Having   considered the matter in detail, this Court, by its judgment   dated   07.10.2021,   recalled   its   earlier   orders   dated 20.08.2020 and 08.12.2020. The relevant portion of the order is as under:­ “34. The documents and the developments referred to hereinabove show:­ (i)   Perry had given an unequivocal undertaking to the   High   Court   that   he   would   submit   to   the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. He had also given a solemn undertaking to this Court that he would comply   with   the   Order   dated   28.10.2020   in addition to the Judgment dated 28.10.2020.  In response to a specific submission raised in (ii) Miscellaneous Application No. 2140 of 2020 (quoted in   paragraph   16   hereinabove),   it   was   submitted by Perry   that   he   had   subjected   himself   to   the jurisdiction   of   this   Court.   While   dealing   with   the rival   submissions   in   the   Order   dated   8.12.2020, Page 8 of 32 this Court made it clear that the undertaking given by Perry to the High Court  would continue to be operative, in addition to the undertaking given to this Court. (iii)  The   Judgment   dated   28.10.2020   had   called upon Perry to   obtain   a   ‘Mirror   Order’   from   the concerned Court in Nairobi to reflect the directions contained   in   the   Judgment   dated   28.10.2020. Thereafter, the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi along with the relevant   application   moved   by Perry seeking registration   of   the   Judgment   dated   28.10.2020, was filed in this Court. (iv)  There was a dispute whether the registration granted vide order dated 9.11.2020 by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi amounted to fulfilling the requirement of a “Mirror Order”. The submissions on the point were dealt with in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the   Order   dated   8.12.2020.   The   learned   counsel appearing   for Perry had   relied   upon   the   opinion given by M/s. GMC Advocates which in turn had relied upon the decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi in Re : Matter of I W P (Infant) [2013] eKLR to submit that  the  registration itself  was  a “Mirror Order” in compliance of the requirements of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020. Relying on the submissions so advanced on behalf of Perry and   in   deference   to   the   Order   dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi,   in   paragraph   10   of   the   Order   dated 8.12.2020, this Court observed that the registration of the Judgment of this Court by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi was sufficient compliance of the directions to obtain a “Mirror Order” issued from a Competent Court in Kenya. Page 9 of 32 (v)  The Judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the Order dated 8.12.2020 passed by this Court were thus premised on the submission that the Order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi   while   registering   the   Judgment   dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court was in fact the “Mirror Order”. (vi)  It now transpires that by a subsequent Order dated   21.5.2021,   the   High   Court   of   Kenya   at Nairobi in Paragraph 13 of its order observed that the judgment of this Court was not registrable and dismissed   the   Originating   Summons   dated 30.10.2020 filed by Perry. (vii)  At no stage Perry brought this development to the   notice   of   this   Court   that   the   Originating Summons moved by him seeking registration of the Judgment dated 28.10.2020 passed by this Court was   dismissed   by   the   High   Court   of   Kenya   at Nairobi   on   21.5.2021.   Having   submitted   to   the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts it was the bounden duty of Perry to keep this Court appraised of all the developments particularly when the “Mirror Order” was the fulcrum on the basis of which this Court handed over to him the custody of Aditya. (viii)  This   infraction  gets   more   pronounced  in  the light   of   the   stand   taken   in   his   Affidavit   dated 5.8.2021   filed   in   this   Court   and   referred   to   in Paragraph   22   hereinabove.   In   that affidavit Perry unequivocally stated that he had not even the remotest intention to disobey the Order passed by this Court including the Judgment dated 28.10.2020.   Yet,   something   as   basic   and fundamental like the Order dated 21.05.2021 was not   brought   to   the   notice   of   this   Court. Logically, Perry should have brought back Aditya to this   country   so   that   status   quo   ante   could   be Page 10 of 32 restored and appropriate orders could thereafter be passed by this Court. (ix)  Miscellaneous   Application   No.   1167   of   2021 filed   by   Smriti   had   annexed   e­mails   exchanged between her and  Perry and prayed that Perry be directed   to   comply   with   directions   regarding vacation   access.   In   response,   apart   from   stating that   he   had   no   intentions   to   disobey   the   orders passed by this Court, Perry voiced concern about sending Aditya to India. Being well aware of the conditions in this Country, a solution was devised by this Court in its Order dated 11.08.2021 and certain directions to facilitate the entry of Aditya into and his exit from India in a safe manner were issued. Pertinently on 11.08.2021, the attention of this   Court   was   not   invited   to   the   fact   that   the Situational Report dated 09.08.2021 as referred to hereinabove   was   made   or   that   the   matter   was being looked into by the concerned authorities in Kenya. (X)  Despite   clear   directions   issued   in   the   Order dated 11.08.2021 Perry had not taken any steps to comply with the Order. As a matter of fact, by the time the matter was taken up for further hearing on 16.08.2021, Perry   sought   to   withdraw   the authorization in favour of the learned counsel who were   all   the   while   representing   him   before   this Court. (XI)  As disclosed in I.A. 100550 of 2021 week­end Skype meetings between Smriti and Aditya were not   facilitated   from   the   week­end   of   14.08.2021 and 15.08.2021. Perry also blocked all means  of communications   with   Smriti.   Though   in   law   the learned advocates who had entered appearance on behalf   of Perry   would   continue   to   represent   him, notice   was   additionally   directed   to   be   served on Perry through Indian embassy of Nairobi. Page 11 of 32 (XII)  In   the   light   of   the   defiant   attitude   exhibited by Perry and  his refusal  to  abide  by the  Orders passed by this court, ad­interim relief in terms of prayers (d)(e) and (f) made by Smriti in her I.A. No. 100550 of 2021 was granted by this Court vide its order dated 17.08.2021. (XIII)  Finally, Petition No. E301 of 2021 and ­ Notice of Motion were moved on behalf of Perry, filed in the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi on 26.08.2021. The stand taken by Perry in said Petition and Notice of Motion is  that  it  would  be  humiliating  to  compel Aditya   to   take   OCI   Card;   that   wishes   of   Aditya were not ascertained by this Court; that there was no valid Mirror Order and that the orders passed by this Court were without jurisdiction. He has prayed for declaration that there existed no valid “Mirror Order” and in the circumstances the orders passed by this Court are incapable of compliance and/or enforcement. 35. These developments not only show the defiant and  contumacious  posture  now  adopted  by Perry but prima facie support  the  submissions  of  Smriti made   in   Interim   Applications   referred   to   in paragraphs   25,   27,   and   28   herein   above.   There appears   to   be   concrete   material   and   reason   to believe that it was a well­planned conspiracy on part of Perry to persuade this Court to pass orders in his favour and allow him the custody of Aditya and then turn around and defy the Orders of this Court. 36. It is fundamental that a party approaching the Court must come with clean hands, more so in child custody matters. Any fraudulent conduct based on which the custody of a minor is obtained under the orders of the Court, would negate and nullify the element   of   trust   reposed   by   the   Court   in   the concerned person. Wherever the custody of a minor Page 12 of 32 is a matter of dispute between the parents or the concerned parties, the primary custody of the minor, in parens   patriae jurisdiction,   is   with   the   Court which   may   then   hand   over   the   custody   to   the person who in the eyes of the Court, would be the most suitable person. Any action initiated to obtain such   custody   from   the   Court   with   fraudulent conduct   and   design   would   be   a   fraud   on   the process of the Court. 39. Though, at every juncture solemn undertakings were   given   by   Perry to   the   High   Court   and   this Court, such undertakings were not only flagrantly violated but a stand is now taken challenging the very   jurisdiction   of   the   Indian   Courts,   despite having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Indian   Courts.   Such   conduct, prime   facie,   can certainly be said to be contumacious calling for an action in contempt jurisdiction. Moreover, the non­ disclosure of material facts by Perry at the relevant junctures also shows that he approached the Indian Courts with unclean hands. 40.   It   was   only   on   the   basis   of   the   solemn undertakings   given   by Perry and   the   order   dated 09.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi which was projected to be a “Mirror Order” in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, that   the   custody   of   Aditya   was   directed   to   be handed   over   to   Perry.   Since   the   false   and fraudulent representations made by Perry were the foundation, on the basis of which this Court was persuaded to handover custody of Aditya to him, it shall be the duty of this Court to nullify, in every way, the effect and impact of the orders which were obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. All the decisions   referred   to   hereinabove   point   in   that direction. This Court would therefore be well within Page 13 of 32

Page 14 of 32 (F) The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi through   its   Director   is   directed   to   initiate appropriate   proceedings   by   registering   criminal proceedings   against Perry and   to   secure   and entrust the custody of Aditya to Smriti. (G) The   Secretary,   Ministry   of   External   Affairs, Government   of   India,   New   Delhi   and   the   Indian Embassy in Kenya are directed to ensure that all possible   assistance   and   logistical   support   is extended   to   Smriti   in   securing   the   custody   of Aditya. (H) From   and   out   of   the   amount   of   Rs.   1   crore deposited by Perry in this Court, at this stage, an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs be handed over to Smriti towards legal expense incurred or required to be incurred hereafter. Rest of the money shall continue to be kept in deposit with the Registry till further orders.” 8. On 25.01.2022, following the suo­moto notice for contempt of Court, this Court framed charges and issued notice to the contemnor. The matter was adjourned from time to time to give further opportunities to the contemnor. Finally, by its judgment dated   11.07.2022,   this   Court   convicted   the   contemnor   for having committed civil and criminal contempt of this Court’s orders. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: “ 15. It   is   thus   well   settled   that   a   person   who makes   a   false   statement   before   the   Court   and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interfered Page 15 of 32 with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt   of   Court.   The   extracted   portion   above clearly shows that in such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court. 16. The essential features of the matter as culled out in paragraph 34 of the Order dated 07.10.2021 were   relied   upon   to   arrive   at   a   prime   facie observation that  Perry was  guilty of contempt  of Court.   Though   notice   was   issued   to   Perry,   no response   has   been   tendered.   We   find   that   the material on record clearly shows violation on part of Perry.  The observations made in paragraph 34 of the order dated 07.10.2021 were on the basis of record.     Having   considered   the   entirety   of   the matter,   in   our   view,   Perry   is   guilty   of   having committed criminal contempt of Court part from the contempt for violating express undertakings given to the Courts, including this Court.   We accordingly hold Perry guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 17. Though the instant proceedings can be taken to logical conclusion and order of sentence can be awarded even in the absence of Perry, we give final opportunity to Perry to present himself before this Court on 22.07.2022 at 3.00 pm along with Aditya. He   shall   then   have   an   opportunity   to   advance appropriate   submissions   on   the   issue   of punishment to be awarded to him.  It shall also be open to Perry to purge himself of contempt in which case   a   sympathetic   view   may   be   taken   in   the matter. Let copy of this Order be served upon Perry through email ID used by him in serving process upon Smriti.  Additionally, a copy shall be given to Mr. P.K. Manohar, learned Advocate.” Page 16 of 32 9. It   is   in   the   above­referred   background   that   the   present proceedings for imposition of sentence are being taken up. These proceedings for sentence were spread over three months. During this   period,   the   case   was   listed   on   22.07.2022,   27.09.2022, 30.09.2022 and 17.10.2022. It was finally heard on 21.10.2022 when   it   was   decided   that   sufficient   opportunity   had   been granted to the contemnor to appear and explain his actions or to purge his conduct. However, he continued to be defiant & did not enter appearance personally or through counsel. 10. We   heard  Ms.  Sonia  Mathur,  Sr.  Advocate   on  behalf  of Smriti Kansagra, and also heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, who assisted the Court as per our request on 30.09.2022. Having examined the merit in detail, we hold that:  10.1 The contemnor had given an unequivocal undertaking to the High Court that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian   Courts.   In   response   to   a   submission   raised   in Miscellaneous   Application   No.   2140   of   2020,   he   specifically stated that he had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Page 17 of 32 Court.  In its Order dated 08.12.2020, this Court made it clear that the undertaking  given  by him  to  the High  Court would continue to be operative in addition to the undertaking given to this Court. The contemnor blatantly breached the undertaking. This is a deliberate disobedience of Courts order. 10.2 The contemnor gave a solemn undertaking to this Court that he would comply with the judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the   order   dated   08.12.2020.   However,   he   breached   this undertaking   also.   It  had   become   evident  that   the   contemnor has,   in   his   well­calculated   and   deliberate   scheme   of   things, given assurances and undertakings to mislead the Courts in India, including this Court, when he had no intention to comply or abide by any of his assurances. The following acts would demonstrate that they are not only willful disobedience of the judgment   of   this   Court   but   are   calculated   to   obstruct   the administration of Justice and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. They had the clear effect of lowering the authority of the Court.   Page 18 of 32 10.3 The judgment dated 28.10.2020 called upon the contemnor to obtain a Mirror Order from the concerned Court in Nairobi to reflect   the   directions   contained   in   the   judgment   dated 28.10.2020. Following this, the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi along with the relevant application moved by the contemnor seeking registration of the judgment dated 28.10.2020, was filed in this Court. There was a dispute   whether   the   registration   granted   vide   order   dated 09.11.2020 by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi amounted to fulfilling   the   requirement   of   a   Mirror   Order.   The   counsel appearing for the contemnor relied upon the opinion given by M/s GMC Advocates which in turn had relied upon the decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi in Re: Matter of I W P (Infant) [2013] eKLR to submit that the registration itself was a “Mirror   Order”   in   compliance   of   the   requirements   of   the Judgment dated 28.10.2020. Through submissions advanced on behalf of the contemnor based on the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, this Court was Page 19 of 32 persuaded to believe that registration of the judgment of this Court   by   the   High   Court   of   Kenya   at   Nairobi   was   sufficient compliance of the directions to obtain a “Mirror Order”. It now transpires that the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi by its order dated 21.05.2021 held that the judgment of this Court was not registrable and dismissed the Originating Summons.  10.4 The proceedings and the order of the High Court of Kenya at   Nairobi   were   suppressed.   The   contemnor   deliberately   and with the clear intention to defeat the judgment and order of this Court   did   not   bring   these   facts   to   the   notice   of   this   Court. Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts it was the bounden duty of the contemnor to keep this Court appraised of all the developments particularly when the “Mirror Order” was the fulcrum on the basis of which this Court handed over to him the custody of Aditya. This act has clearly lowered the authority of this Court. 10.5 This infraction gets more pronounced in the light of the stand taken in his Affidavit dated 05.08.2021 filed in this Court, Page 20 of 32 where the contemnor unequivocally stated that he had not even the remotest intention to disobey the Order passed by this Court including the Judgment dated 28.10.2020. These equivocal and contradictory acts clearly demonstrate that the contemnor was acting with a design and a clear intention to defeat the orders of this Court. He obstructed the course of Justice. 10.6 Being well aware of the procedure devised by this Court in its Order dated 11.08.2021 to facilitate the safe entry and exit of Aditya into India, the contemnor did not inform this Court about the fact that a Situational Report dated 09.08.2021 was made or that the concerned authorities were looking into the matter in Kenya. All these acts were done and contrary steps were taken even while the contemnor was assuring this Court that he had no intention to disobey the orders passed by this Court. All this demonstrates a clear intention to mislead this Court. 10.7 Despite   clear   directions   issued   in   the   Order   dated 11.08.2021 Perry had not taken any steps to comply with the Order. He failed to renew OCI and failed to have Aditya board Page 21 of 32 the   flight   on   13.08.2021.   Weekend   Skype   meetings   between Smriti   and   Aditya   were   not   facilitated   from   the   weekend   of 14.08.2021. In total and complete disregard for all orders, the contemnor blocked all means of communication with Smriti. 10.8 Though in law the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the contemnor would, as per our orders, continue to represent him, we have additionally directed that notice be served on him through  Indian  embassy   of   Nairobi.   Contemnor   has  failed   to appear   since   16.08.2021   despite   repeated   directions.   As   a matter of fact, by the time the case was taken up for further hearing on 16.08.2021, the contemnor sought to withdraw the authorization in favour of the learned counsel who were all the while representing him before this Court. By this deliberate and well   thought   out   actions,   contemnor   obstructed   the administration of justice. 10.9 In Petition No. E301 of 2021 and Notice of Motion before the   High   Court   of   Kenya   at   Nairobi   on   26.08.2021,   the contemnor submitted that it would be humiliating to compel Page 22 of 32 Aditya to take OCI Card. He also stated that the wishes of Aditya were not  ascertained   by   this   Court.   He   further   pleaded   that there was no valid Mirror Order and that the orders passed by this Court were without jurisdiction. He specifically prayed for declaration that there existed no valid “Mirror Order” and in the circumstances the orders passed by this Court are incapable of compliance and/or enforcement. This is the most egregious part of   the   contumacious   acts   committed   by   the   contemnor.   The statements  made by  him were  false,  and  in  fact,  being  fully aware that these were false statements, he proceeded to invoke the jurisdiction of the Kenya High Court to hold that Judgments and Orders passed by Indian Courts were unenforceable. 10.10 These developments show the defiant and contumacious posture   now   adopted   by   the   contemnor.   There   is   concrete material   and   reason   to   believe   that   it   was   a   well­planned conspiracy   on   part   of   Perry   to   persuade   this   Court   to   pass orders in his favour and allow him the custody of Aditya and then turn around and defy the orders of this Court. Page 23 of 32 11. Article 129 of the Constitution of India empowering this Court to punish for contempt of self is as follows: ­ 

12. It  is now well settled that the power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedure under

3 Others , this Court held that: ­

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub­section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.” 3  (2001) 7 SCC 549 Page 24 of 32

13. The above said principle is followed in  Re:   Vijay Kurle and 4 Ors. , where this Court reiterated the above referred principle and held as under: ­ “38. The aforesaid finding clearly indicates that the Court   held   that   any   law   which   stultifies   or abrogates the power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution or of the High Courts under Article 215 of the Constitution, could not be said to be validly enacted. It however, went on to hold that providing the quantum of punishment or a period of limitation would not mean that the powers of the Court under Article 129 have been stultified or abrogated. We are not going into the correctness or otherwise of this judgment but it is clear that this judgment   only   dealt   with   the   issue   whether   the Parliament could fix a period of limitation to initiate the proceedings under the Act. Without commenting one way or the other on Pallav Seth's case (supra) it is clear that the same has not dealt with the powers of this Court to issue suo motu notice of contempt. 39. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the powers of the Supreme Court to initiate contempt are not in any manner limited by 4  (2020) SCC online SC 407. Page 25 of 32 the provisions of the Act. This Court is vested with the constitutional powers to deal with the contempt. Section 15 is not the source of the power to issue notice for contempt. It only provides the procedure in which such contempt is to be initiated and this procedure   provides   that   there   are   three   ways   of initiating a contempt ­ (i) suo motu (ii) on the motion by the Advocate General/Attorney General/Solicitor General and (iii) on the basis of a petition filed by any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate   General/Attorney   General/Solicitor General.   As   far   as suo   motu petitions   are concerned,   there   is   no   requirement   for   taking consent of anybody because the Court is exercising its   inherent   powers   to   issue  notice  for  contempt. This is not only clear from the provisions of the Act but  also  clear from the Rules laid  down by this Court.” 14. It   is   within   the   constitutional   power   of   this   Court   to consider the   contumacious   acts of a contemnor and to punish him/her   for   the   same.   It   is   in   exercise   of   such   a   power, unrestricted by the Contempt of Court Act that this Court had imposed a sentence of more than six months and also directed in   some   cases   that   the   contemnor   shall   undergo   rigorous 5 imprisonment .  5 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr.  v.  State of Gujarat and Ors,  (2006) 3 SCC 374 ;  and v.  (1996) 7 SCC 397. Afzal and Anr.  State of Haryana and Ors,  Page 26 of 32 15. We are of the view that the contemnor had deliberately, and with a clear design, made it appear as if he was willing to comply with the Judgment and direction of the Indian Courts. The repeated statements and affidavits affirming to comply with the directions of this Court were given only to ensure that the custody of Aditya is given to him. We are of the clear opinion that   the   contemnor   had   no   intention   to   comply   with   the directions of the Court even while he gave the undertaking, filed solemn affidavit or even instructed his lawyer to so represent on his behalf.  16. The   subsequent   conduct   of   the   contemnor   after   taking Aditya out of India leaves no doubt in our mind that the entire proceedings were conducted with the deliberate and mala­fide intention   to   mislead   the   Supreme   Court   in   permitting   the contemnor to shift Aditya out of India. Page 27 of 32 17. This  Court in   Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and 6 ors.   while articulating the powers under Article 129 held as follows: ­ “19.   …It   is   therefore   that   Article   142   of   the Constitution of India mandates that this Court “… in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete  justice  in  any   cause   or  matter  pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India …”. And it is also inter alia for the above enforcement, that Article 129 of the Constitution of India, vests in the Supreme Court the power, amongst other things, to enforce compliance with the Court directions. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and power to punish   for   its   contempt.   It   is   this   dispensation which   authorises   the   Supreme   Court   to   enforce compliance with its orders. For, the power to punish would   serve   no   purpose   if   the   power   to   enforce compliance was lacking. It was, therefore, that this Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India [(2012) 1 SCC 273 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 88 : (2012) 1 SCC   (Cri)   528   :   (2012)   1   SCC   (L&S)   83]   with reference   to   its   contempt   jurisdiction   observed, thus : (SCC pp. 282­85, paras 26­27 & 34) “26.   It   is   also   of   some   relevance   to   note   that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution   or   non­obedience   by   a   passive   and dormant   conduct   leads   to   the   same   result. 6 ( 2014) 8 SCC 470.  Also see :  Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and anr.  (1998) 4 SCC  409, para 38. Page 28 of 32 Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and   functions   effectively   and   remain   true   to   the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity   and   authority   of   the   courts   have   to   be respected   and   protected   at   all   costs   (refer   T.N. Godavarman   Thirumulpad   (102)   v.   Ashok   Khot [(2006) 5 SCC 1] , SCC p. 6, para 5)...  130. ...The scope of the instant contempt jurisdiction extends to punishing contemnors for violating the Court's orders; punishing contemnors for disobeying the Court's orders; punishing contemnors for breach of undertakings given to the Courts. It also extends to enforcement of the Court's orders. The contempt jurisdiction even extends to punishing those who scandalise   (or   lower   the   authority   of)   any   court; punishing   those   who   interfere   in   due   course   of judicial   proceedings;   and   punishing   those   who obstruct the administration of justice...” 18. We have already convicted Perry Kansagra for contempt. The above referred facts are mentioned only to demonstrate that the   contemnor   has   deliberately   and   with   a   clear   intention committed   egregious   acts   of   contempt.   These   acts   constitute willful disobedience of the   judgment, direction and order   of this Court coupled with  willful breach of the undertaking given by the Court  which constitute civil contempt. The contemnor has falsely Page 29 of 32 represented before the foreign jurisdiction that Indian Courts have not sought the consent of Aditya and that the decision of the Supreme Court of India is unenforceable. These acts clearly lower  . We have also indicated that the the authority of this Court contemnor   has   interfered   with   the   due   course   of   judicial proceedings  and  obstructed the administration of justice  which is a clear case of criminal contempt. 19.  In the circumstances and in order to mention the majesty of   law,   we   must   impose   upon   adequate   punishment   on   the contemnor.   We   have   also   noted   that   the   contemnor   never showed any remorse or tender any apology for his conduct.  20.  For the reasons stated above, we direct that the contemnor be: a) Punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months for civil contempt of Court for his acts of deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,50,000/­ (Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand),   in   default   he   shall   further   undergo   simple imprisonment for one month. Page 30 of 32 b) Punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months for criminal contempt of Court for obstructing the administration of Justice and lowering the authority of this Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,50,000/­ (Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand), in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 21. In view of the egregious acts of civil as well as criminal contempt, we further direct that the sentences shall be served consecutively. 22. We   further   direct that  the  total  fine   of   Rs.  25,00,000/­ (Twenty­Five Lakhs) as indicated above, to be deposited by the contemnor in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today and the same shall be released to Smriti Kansagra upon an application filed by her.  23. We also direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to secure the presence of the contemnor to undergo the imprisonment imposed upon him. Needless to say, Government of  India  including   the   Ministry   of   External  Affairs   and   other agencies   or   instrumentalities   shall   carry   out   the   directions Page 31 of 32 issued by the Court with due diligence and utmost expediency. Compliance report shall be filed in the Registry of this Court by 09.12.2022. 24. We   further   direct   the   case   to   be   listed   for   hearing   for further orders on 15.12.2022.

Page 32 of 32