'Contempt Power Can't Be Used To Execute Orders' : Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Contempt Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court held that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to execute a decree or implement an order. The contempt power can be invoked only if it is established that there was a wilful disobedience.

Even while exercising such power, the Court has to restrict the scope of its enquiry to the directions which are explicitly specified in the judgment/order.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar observed :

"In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same- If two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable."

The judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar added :

"The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. In Sudhir Vasudeva Vs. George Ravishekeran, this Court has observed that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged."

The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of this Court. What would be relevant is the “wilful disobedience”. Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can be clutched."

The judgment added that the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction would not enter into question which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is complained by the applicant.

The Court will consider whether the direction issued in the judgment or order is complied in the true sense or in its letter and spirit and would not embark upon the journey of examining as to what the judgment or order should have contained.

"The primary concern would be as to whether there has been deliberate default or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein, in which event it would be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification instead of clutching the contempt jurisdiction."

The judgment added that a "theoretical implementation" would not amount to compliance.

"The implementation of the order should be substantial and said order/s should clearly reflect the intention of the authorities of its bonafides, as otherwise it has to be necessarily held that the act of State and its officers are not bonafide but tainted or malafide."

"Unless an order is absolutely impossible to be executed or carried out, the authorities cannot be heard to contend that financial burden would be a hurdle to implement the orders of this Court. If at all, there were any such hurdles, it was always open to authorities to approach this Court to seek appropriate orders and an attempt made in that regard had also failed," the Court added.

Case : Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs and anothers vs P Ravikumar and others

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 971 

Click here to read the judgment