Contempt for violating an affirmed Single Bench order lies before the Single Bench.

The petitioners alleged violation of an order dated 15 November 2018 passed by a Division Bench, which had affirmed the order of a learned Single Judge dated 3 October 2018.

The petitioners had initially approached the learned Single Judge through contempt petition CC/9/2019 seeking implementation of the 3 October 2018 order. By order dated 28 February 2019, the learned Single Judge held that, since the Division Bench had interfered with the matter, the contempt petition ought to be placed before the Division Bench, and permitted the petitioners to withdraw it and file a fresh petition before that Bench. The present contempt petitions were thereafter filed.

The principal question concerned the proper forum for a contempt petition where a Division Bench had affirmed, rather than reversed or modified, an order of the Single Judge.

Whether a contempt petition alleging violation of an order of a learned Single Judge lies before the Division Bench merely because the Division Bench affirmed that order in appeal?

Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to approach the appropriate court for implementation of the Single Judge’s order dated 3 October 2018?

The Court applied the principles laid down by the Special Bench in Sailesh Kumar v. Smitha R. IAS, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152, holding that where a Division Bench affirms an order of a Single Judge passed in original jurisdiction, contempt alleging violation of the original directions lies before the Single Judge; where the order is reversed, modified, or set aside, contempt lies before the Division Bench that passed the appellate order; and where an undertaking was given before the Single Judge, contempt lies before that Judge.

The Court also considered Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) v. Binod Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3984, where the contempt proceeding was held not to lie before the High Court after merger of the Division Bench order with the Supreme Court’s order.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 25 March 2026 in SLP (C) No. 18973/2025, referring to 2026 SCC OnLine SC 331 and (2000) 6 SCC 359, found no error in that approach.

Although reliance was placed on Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu, (2023) 9 SCC 641, concerning the application of law prevailing during the pendency of proceedings, the Court held that Sailesh Kumar remained binding.

The Court treated the legal character of the appellate order as determinative. Since the Division Bench had affirmed the Single Judge’s order dated 3 October 2018 and had neither reversed nor modified it, the case fell squarely within the first category formulated in Sailesh Kumar: contempt for violation of the original directions lies before the Single Judge.

The Court declined to refer Sailesh Kumar to a larger or appropriate Bench, observing that it was binding and had subsequently been applied in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya, whose reasoning had not been disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the present proceedings were not maintainable before the Division Bench. However, considering the petitioners’ request as reasonable, the Court preserved their substantive remedy by permitting them to approach the appropriate court for implementation of the order dated 3 October 2018.

CC/18/2019 and CC/12/2020 were accordingly disposed of. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the appropriate court for implementation of the order dated 3 October 2018 within four weeks from 18 September 2026; any such proceeding filed within that period was directed to be treated as having been filed within the prescribed limitation period.