Summary
Once a Single Judge of the High Court had held the respondent guilty of contempt and granted time to purge it, a successor Single Judge on change of roster could not revisit that finding and hold that no contempt was committed; doing so amounted to sitting in appeal over a coordinate Bench. The Supreme Court set aside the later order and remitted the matter to the stage after the finding of guilt.
Issues
- Whether a Single Judge of the High Court, seized of a contempt petition on change of roster after a coordinate Single Judge had already held the respondent guilty of contempt and granted time to purge it, could re-examine and reverse the finding of contempt.
- What remedy was open to the respondent against the order holding him guilty of contempt.
Provisions considered
- Section 19, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971If the respondent considered the order holding him guilty of contempt to be wrong in law, his only option was an appeal under Section 19; having accepted that order, he could not contend before the successor Judge, nor could that Judge hold, that no contempt was committed. (¶ 17)
- Sections 12 and 13, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Whether, under Sections 12 and 13, the respondent was liable to be punished, should be discharged, or should have the punishment remitted on an apology was a different matter that the successor Judge could consider; what was impermissible was holding that no contempt had been committed at all. (¶¶ 16, 18)
Held
- After an order holding a party guilty of contempt and granting time to purge it, the only questions left for the successor Judge are whether the contempt has been purged and, if not, whether and how the contemnor should be punished; the question whether contempt was in fact committed cannot be revisited. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16)
- A Single Judge who, on change of roster, holds that the respondent did not commit contempt after a coordinate Single Judge had found him guilty acts in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to settled principles of judicial propriety, since the later order amounts to sitting in appeal over the order of the coordinate Bench. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the contempt allegation and confined itself to the correctness of the procedure adopted by the High Court. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgment and final order of the Delhi High Court dated 3 July 2024 quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the Single Judge to be considered from the stage after the order dated 5 December 2023 holding the respondent guilty of contempt; no order as to costs.