High Court lacks jurisdiction to punish for contempt of directions issued by the Supreme Court of India.

The petitioner, owner of properties in Greater Kailash, lodged a complaint on 21.07.2025 with the DCP, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), alleging that her sons forged an Agreement to Sell to usurp her property

Despite a High Court order dismissing a quashing petition filed by the accused [para 8], the respondent-authority concluded after five months that no cognizable offence was made out

The petitioner filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's mandate in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., which requires mandatory registration of an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence

Specifically, the petitioner challenged the respondent’s failure to register an FIR and the delay in completing the preliminary inquiry

1. Whether a High Court has the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or Article 215 of the Constitution to entertain a petition alleging contempt of directions issued by the Supreme Court of India.

The court primarily applied Section 10 and Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which define the High Court’s power to punish for contempt of itself and its subordinate courts

It relied on Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India, which designate the Supreme Court and High Courts as courts of record with powers to punish for their own contempt

a High Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to punishing contempt of a superior court

alleged violations of the Lalita Kumari guidelines must be addressed by the Supreme Court itself or through other statutory remedies

The Court reasoned that a conjoint reading of statutory and constitutional provisions limits the High Court's contempt jurisdiction strictly to its own orders and those of courts subordinate to it

The Court observed that neither the Contempt of Courts Act nor Article 215 confers "overstepping" jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of Supreme Court directions

Citing Vitusah Oberoi, the Court noted that if the Supreme Court, as a court of record under Article 129, does not invoke its power to punish for its own contempt, a subordinate court (the High Court) cannot do so

Applying this to the present facts, the Court held that while the directions in Lalita Kumari are binding on the police [para 26], any "willful disobedience" of those specific Supreme Court mandates cannot be tried by the High Court under its contempt jurisdiction

The Court concluded that the High Court cannot entertain proceedings for the contempt of a superior court

The petition was dismissed; however, the Court clarified that the binding nature of Lalita Kumari remains undiluted and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies under criminal law, such as proceedings under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, against the erring officials