When Is An Order Passed By HC Single Bench In Contempt Jurisdiction Appealable Before DB? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently held that an order passed by a single bench of the High Court declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, or initiating proceedings for contempt, or an order dropping the proceedings for contempt or an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable to the division bench under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Such an order can be challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea challenging the institution of an appeal in Allahabad High Court against the single bench order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings relating to a service matter. 

The respondents had filed an appeal against the order of single bench of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench dated January 5, 2022 in a contempt application. 

As per the January 5, 2022 order, it was held that the present appellant had not committed any contempt of the previous order of the Court passed on April 22, 2015, in a writ petition filed by the respondent. 

Notably, in the judgement of April 2015, the High Court directed the College to reinstate the respondent back to service.

In the appeal, the High Court however passed an interim order allowing the respondent to furnish the joining report of the appellant institution within 15 days from date of the order. It further recorded, "In case the appellant is permitted to join the Institution, the consequences of the judgement giving rise to the contempt petition shall be considered on the next date of listing." 

The Additional Chief Standing Counsel was further directed to seek instructions from the college as to why the College has not been directed to allow the petitioner join in the college. The Division bench rejected the contention of the College that the respondent after the said judgement in 2015 failed to join the institution and joined elsewhere, thus she was not entitled to claim the salary after the judgement. 

Relying upon the decision in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the appellant state contended that the second appeal would not be tenable. 

On the contrary, Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Singh for the respondent argued that since the Single Bench had gone into the into the merits of the matter while deciding the contempt application and thus as per paragraph 11, clause V of the Midnapore decision would be applicable, making the second appeal maintainable. 

The relevant clause of the decision reads - " 11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus :

V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)"  

Disagreeing with the above argument of the respondent, the bench referred to Clause II of the same decision which clearly stated that orders which decline to , or agree to initiate contempt proceedings, or drop or exonerate the persons from such proceedings cannot be appealable under S. 19 (procedure for appeals) of Contempt of Courts Act.  

"II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution."  

"The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/employee on Clause V, in our view, is not well pressed. There is no adjudication or direction with regard to the merits of the matter by the learned Single Judge," the Court observed.

The Court held that the second appeal could not be tenable on two main aspects : (1) the single bench order didn't enter into the merits of the case as no adjudication or direction was given on merits; (2) in light of Clause II of the decision, the only legal remedy left was to challenge the single bench order directly under Article 136 before the Apex Court. 

The impugned order was quashed and the appeal filed by the respondent before the division bench was also dismissed. 

Case Details : DEEPAK KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. DEVINA TEWARI AND OTHERS|SLP(C) No. 10098 of 2023 

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 951

Click here to read the judgment