Summary
A Kenyan father was given custody of his son to take him to Kenya. That rested on his undertakings to submit to Indian courts and on a Kenyan registration of the Supreme Court's judgment, presented as a "mirror order". He concealed that the Kenyan High Court later refused registration. He then cut off the mother's access and asked the Kenyan court to declare the Indian orders unenforceable. The Supreme Court had already recalled the custody orders and convicted him of civil and criminal contempt. Sentencing him in his absence, the Court held that its Article 129 power is not confined by the Contempt of Courts Act. It imposed six months' simple imprisonment for each contempt, to run consecutively, and fines totalling Rs 25 lakh payable to the mother. The Union was directed to secure his presence to serve the sentence.
Issues
- What sentence should be imposed on a contemnor convicted of civil and criminal contempt for obtaining custody of his child through undertakings and a supposed mirror order, then defying the Court's orders from abroad.
- Whether the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Provisions considered
- Article 129, Constitution of IndiaAs a court of record, the Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt of itself is constitutional and not confined to the procedure or limits under the Contempt of Courts Act. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The statutory maximum of six months does not restrict the Supreme Court's constitutional power, under which consecutive sentences were imposed. (¶¶ 12, 14, 21)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaRead with Article 129, it empowers the Court to enforce compliance with its directions as well as to punish for contempt. (¶ 17)
Held
- The contemnor breached his undertakings to submit to Indian jurisdiction and to comply with the Court's orders, concealed the Kenyan High Court's refusal to register the judgment on which custody had been handed over, blocked the mother's access and stopped appearing, all part of a planned design to mislead the Court. (¶¶ 10, 15, 16)
- Falsely telling the Kenyan court that the Indian orders were without jurisdiction and unenforceable was the most egregious act; it lowered the Court's authority and obstructed justice, amounting to criminal contempt besides civil contempt for wilful disobedience and breach of undertakings. (¶¶ 10.9, 18)
- Since the contemnor showed no remorse and offered no apology despite repeated opportunities, adequate punishment was required, with the sentences for civil and criminal contempt to run consecutively. (¶¶ 9, 19, 20, 21)
Result
The contemnor sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 12,50,000 for civil contempt and the same for criminal contempt, sentences to run consecutively, with one month's default imprisonment on each; total fine of Rs 25 lakh to be deposited within four weeks for release to the mother; the Union to secure his presence, with a compliance report by 09.12.2022.