9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1633 - HC - Indian LawsStay of contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court affects the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act - constitutional relationship between the Supreme Court and the High Courts particularly regarding the authority of the Supreme Court to issue directions affecting ongoing contempt proceedings before a High Court - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court itself has clarified multiple times that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court. Therefore the relation between High Court and the Supreme Court is not the same as is the High Court. In terms of Articles 132 to 134 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court is not even an ordinary Court of unconditional appeal unless there is a specific statute providing for appeal from the orders of the High Court to the Supreme Court in specified matters. Therefore there is no scope for sundry direction being issued by the Supreme Court to a High Court regarding certain proceeding pending before a High Court. Though under Article 136 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court can permit an appeal and entertain the same against an order of any Court including an appeal directly from the order of a Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) however that is a provision for appeals through special leave from the Supreme Court. Even this Article use non-obstante clause qua only provision contained in Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution of India and not qua the provisions contained in Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution of India containing Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The power of the High Court under Article 215 is framed in exactly the same language as in Article 129 of the Constitution of India under which the Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt qua its own orders. Therefore Article 215 of the Constitution of India per se is not even subject to the Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Power to initiate and to continue the proceedings for alleged contempt qua an order passed by the High Court lies exclusively with the High Court as per the Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Supreme Court has no role in this aspect except in an appeal against the order of a Division Bench of High Court convicting a contemner. As per the provisions of the Act even an appeal does not lie before the Supreme Court against an order passed by Single Bench rather it lies before the Division Bench of High Court and even there the powers of the appellate Court are well defined in terms of stage of appeal and in terms of the nature of order which the appellate Court could pass. The Supreme Court may have power to permit special appeal by a party to contempt proceedings before the High Court against certain types of orders of Contempt Court under certain circumstances however in the present case neither there are any such circumstances nor has any such special appeal been filed by the respondents against any such order of the Contempt Court. A question can very legitimately asked as to who is responsible for this plight of judicial officer manning the Superior Judiciary of State of Punjab and State of Haryana. Is it the High Court or is it the Supreme Court. A soul searching on this aspect by the High Court and the Supreme Court may surprise both of them equally. However this in humble opinion of this Court should sound a note of caution even for the Hon ble Supreme Court to be more specific in causing legal consequences through its order. Otherwise if this is the interpretation given by a High Court to such an order then one can very well imagine the damage which could ensue between private parties on account of such an order where the parties are intensely fighting with each other. Keeping in view the sanctity of the judicial process this Court feels to be absolutely bound by the order and hence the case is adjourned sine die till the aforesaid SLP is decided by Hon ble the Supreme Court. But this may not be always possible for a High Court to follow such a course in view of particular facts and circumstances embedded in a particular case or because of involvement of some statutory provisions. That would be an unfortunate situation which would better be avoided. Conclusion - The contempt proceedings before the High Court continue to have full legal force since the Supreme Court did not stay the underlying order and the stay of contempt proceedings alone does not divest the High Court of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 215. The Court however adjourned the matter sine die out of respect for the Supreme Court s order but cautioned against the broad and potentially damaging implications of such orders. Appeal disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Constitutional Relationship and Jurisdiction of High Courts vs. Supreme Court in Contempt Proceedings The Court examined the constitutional framework governing the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Articles 132 to 134 provide for appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court orders but only in specific matters and under statutory provisions. Article 136 confers special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but does not override the High Court's powers under Article 215, which grants High Courts exclusive jurisdiction to punish for contempt of their own orders. Article 215's language mirrors that of Article 129 (which applies to the Supreme Court), establishing that contempt jurisdiction is inherent and exclusive to the respective courts. The Court emphasized that Article 136's non-obstante clause applies only within Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution and does not affect Chapter V of Part VI, which contains Article 215. Therefore, the Supreme Court's power to entertain special leave petitions (SLPs) does not generally extend to staying or interfering with contempt proceedings pending before a High Court. The Court noted that while the Supreme Court may entertain special appeals against certain contempt orders, such powers are circumscribed and were not invoked in the present case. The respondents had not filed any appeal against the contempt order of the High Court but only against earlier writ orders. Consequently, the High Court's contempt jurisdiction remains unaffected and operative. Issue 2: Legal Effect of the Supreme Court's Order Staying Contempt Proceedings but Not the Underlying Order The Supreme Court's order stayed contempt proceedings before the High Court but did not stay the operation of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court observed that had the Supreme Court stayed the impugned order itself, the contempt petition would have been dismissed automatically, as is customary. However, since only the contempt proceedings were stayed, the underlying order retains full legal force. As the respondents failed to comply with the Division Bench's order, contempt continued unabated. The Court underscored that the power to initiate and continue contempt proceedings lies exclusively with the High Court under Article 215 and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Supreme Court's stay of contempt proceedings, without staying the underlying order, creates a constitutional and procedural anomaly, effectively placing an estoppel on the High Court's contempt powers. Issue 3: Scope of Appeals and Powers of Appellate Courts in Contempt Matters The Court clarified that appeals against contempt orders passed by a Single Bench of a High Court lie before a Division Bench of the same High Court, not the Supreme Court. The appellate powers of the Division Bench are defined and limited by statute and judicial precedent. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to entertain special appeals in contempt cases is exceptional and discretionary, not routine. In the present case, no special appeal was filed against the contempt order. The respondents' appeal before the Supreme Court was limited to the writ orders. Therefore, the Supreme Court's stay of contempt proceedings was not grounded in any appeal or special leave petition against the contempt order itself. Issue 4: Constitutional and Practical Implications of the Supreme Court's Stay Order The Court expressed concern over the constitutional conformity and practical consequences of the Supreme Court's order staying contempt proceedings. It highlighted that such orders increase pendency and create uncertainty in judicial administration nationwide. The Court emphasized that the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court in the manner of ordinary courts; both are constitutional courts with distinct and co-equal jurisdictions. The Court criticized the tendency to view the Supreme Court as "more Supreme" and the High Court as "less High," cautioning against undermining the constitutional status and powers of High Courts. It noted that the Supreme Court's directions on administrative matters-such as criminal case rosters and designation of Senior Advocates-are often followed without protest, sometimes out of perceived coercion or institutional respect, but such acquiescence should not extend to curtailing High Court powers in contempt jurisdiction. The Court illustrated the adverse consequences of such stay orders with examples:
These examples demonstrate the unintended but serious consequences of such orders and the necessity for the Supreme Court to exercise greater caution and specificity in issuing them. Issue 5: Institutional Responsibility and the Need for Judicial Caution The Court called for introspection by both the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding responsibility for the adverse consequences arising from such stay orders. It urged the Supreme Court to be more precise and circumspect in crafting orders that affect ongoing proceedings, to avoid confusion and injustice. Recognizing the sanctity of the judicial process, the Court stated it felt bound to comply with the Supreme Court's order and thus adjourned the contempt proceedings sine die until the Supreme Court's decision on the SLP. However, it warned that such indefinite adjournments may not always be feasible, especially where statutory provisions or specific facts demand prompt adjudication, and that such situations should be avoided. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
The Court's final determination was that the contempt proceedings before the High Court continue to have full legal force since the Supreme Court did not stay the underlying order, and the stay of contempt proceedings alone does not divest the High Court of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 215. The Court, however, adjourned the matter sine die out of respect for the Supreme Court's order but cautioned against the broad and potentially damaging implications of such orders.
|
