Allahabad High Court Permits VC, Executive Council Members Of KGMC To Move Discharge Applications Before Contempt Court
Recently, while dealing with a special appeal against issuance of notices by the contempt Court, the Allahabad High Court permitted the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow to move for discharge of notices before the Contempt Court since the contempt proceedings are still pending.Rule 5 of Chapter- XXXV-E of the Allahabad High...
Recently, while dealing with a special appeal against issuance of notices by the contempt Court, the Allahabad High Court permitted the Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow to move for discharge of notices before the Contempt Court since the contempt proceedings are still pending.
Rule 5 of Chapter- XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provides for issuance of notice of charges in contempt cases where a prima facie case of contempt of Court is made out against the person concerned within a year of alleged act of contempt of court.
The Court held that the condition of prima facie case being made out is applicable to the impleadment of parties against who contempt is alleged. It was held that where any party is sought to be impleaded as an alleged contemnor, prima facie case ought to be made against him in the impleadment application to enable the Court to frame charges and then issue notice to the alleged contemnors.
“As per Rule 5, the Court has to be prima facie satisfied about contempt having been committed by alleged contemnors. It is then required to issue notice on such satisfaction.”
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the party sought to be impleaded ought to be given an opportunity to bring facts before the Court, unless in exceptional situations in which prima facie case is made out from the facts and evidence placed before the Court. Contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the Court held that this procedural requirement must be adhered to by the Courts.
Factual Background
The Vice-Chancellor and Members of the Executive Council of King George's Medical University, Lucknow filed a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging an order passed by the Contempt Court in Prof. Ashish Wakhlu v. Prof. M.L. Bhatt Vice-Chancellor, K.G.M.C., Lucknow & Ors.
Appellants contended that contempt petition was filed challenging the Resolution of the Executive Council of the University for violating the order of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.35784 (S/S) of 2018 which was filed by the respondents. It was submitted that the appellants whose impleadment was allowed were never party to the Executive Council which passed the resolution as they had joined on the post of the Vice-Chancellor and Executive Council Members much after passing of the resolution.
Accordingly, it was contended that the Single Judge, in contempt proceedings, had issued notices without satisfying himself on whether civil contempt had actually been committed by the appellants. It was argued that contempt proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that contempt proceedings are harsh and thus they must not be initiated casually.
Further, it was submitted that the resolution terminating respondent's services has already been challenged in the writ jurisdiction, and filing contempt was a way to get reinstated in the meantime. It was also stated that an application had been moved by the respondent which has been placed before the Executive Council of the University, but the respondent filed an impleadment before the Court.
It was further contended that it was not a case where directions were not complied with, but where those who had passed the resolution allegedly against the order of the Court had demitted office. Accordingly, it was submitted that appellants had no role to play in passing of the resolution and had not committed contempt of Court.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that “contempt of court” includes both civil and criminal contempt. It observed that “civil contempt” under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is defined as “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”
The Court held that although there is certain flexibility in issuance of notice under Rule 5, existence of facts to assume jurisdiction and application of mind on such facts of the case is essential for issuance of notice.
The Court held that when the Court is satisfied that charges of contempt are made out, only then, based on such satisfaction, can it issue notices.
Observing that on bare perusal of the affidavits, no case had been made out against the appellants, the Court laid down the prerequisites for issuance of notice as under:
“(a) There has to be an order of a Court or an undertaking before it whether it be the High Court or the subordinate court for proceedings under the Act, 1971 as contemplated in Section 2(b) of the said Act.
(b) Such order should have been communicated to the alleged contemnor calling upon him to comply the same. (c) There has to be some action or inaction or undertaking which may amount to willful disobedience or flouting of such order or undertaking so as to constitute civil contempt.
(d) There have to be allegations in the contempt petition or in an application for impleadment mentioning the existence of aforesaid jurisdictional facts/prerequisites making out a prima facie case of deliberate and willful disobedience or violation of the order or undertaking by the alleged contemnors/opposite parties or proposed opposite parties.
(e) The contempt court has to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction about existence of the aforesaid jurisdictional facts/ prerequisites making out a prima facie case of contempt of court by the concerned persons, before issuing notice.”
The Court held that the aforesaid conditions would also apply to impleadment applications in filed contempt proceedings. The Court held that notices in contempt proceedings cannot be issued casually or routinely as it requires application of mind and consideration of facts.
“We must keep in mind that contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. These proceedings carry a rigor much more than any other judicial proceedings for adjudication of disputes. These proceedings are in exercise of powers of the High Court to punish for its contempt and that of the subordinate courts. Therefore, they should be exercised with circumspection and due and proper application of mind even at the stage of initiation of such proceedings.”
The Court held that same prerequisites which apply to issuance of notice in contempt proceedings, apply to any impleadment application moved in such proceedings. However, the Court observed that since the contempt proceedings were pending before the single judge, it was appropriate to relegate the case back with the liberty to the appellants to move application for discharge of notices before the contempt Court.
Accordingly, the special appeal was disposed of.
Case Title: Prof. Soniya Nityanand And Others v. Prof. Ashish Wakhlu 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 125 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 381