Failure To Place "Information" Of Contempt In Judge's Papers Or With Notice Issued To Contemnor Is An "Incurable Defect": Kerala High Court

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha noted that once the defect is noticed in the proceedings, any attempt to continue with it can be viewed as one – sided.

“Bound by the Constitution, as we are, this would maim the Public Trust – the sine qua of any jurisdictional exercise; and would render legal processes – particularly in Suo Motu Contempt motions – vulnerable to deleterious impressions of being one-sided and vitiated.”

In this case, contempt proceedings were initiated against High Court Bar Association President Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy based on a letter addresses by a HC Judge to the Chief Justice.

On the orders of the Chief Justice, the Registrar General initiated action. The High Court took cognizance of the case and issued notice to Shenoy.

Shenoy argued that the Judge's letter, which is to be considered as an 'information' under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was neither annexed to the notice which he received nor was it a part of Judge's Papers when cognizance was taken.

When this contention was initially raised, another Bench of the High Court had directed the Registry to incorporate the letter to the Judge's Papers and give a copy of the letter to Shenoy. However, the Bar President argued that the Court is bound to discharge him under the rigour of Rule 14 under the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1971.

Under Rule 14, after giving an opportunity to the respondent to file counter affidavit, the Court has to see if the respondent has tendered an apology after admission of contempt, then frame charges or if there is no apology/ admission, the Court can discharge him if there is no prima facie case.

The Court held that a prima facie case will arise only if it is sure that the proceedings can continue without any statutory inhibition.

The High Court relied on the Apex Court decision in Muthu Karuppan v Parithi Ilamvasthuthi (2011) which held that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act have to be followed strictly.

The Court observed that Rule 9 (1) says that every petition, reference, information or direction shall be placed for preliminary hearing before the appropriate Bench. Rule 9(2)(b) says that the notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition, reference, information or direction and annexures. The Court noted that the word “shall” is used in both of these circumstances and therefore it has to be strictly complied with.

The Court further held that proceedings which are incompetent from the beginning, particularly when the Court took cognizance, cannot thereafter be converted into a competent one.

The Court held that no further proceedings should be allowed in this matter on the grounds that the letter was not annexed with the Judge's papers when cognizance was taken and the letter was not given to Shenoy along with the notice of contempt.

"...the defect noticed is incurable and incapable of rectification through subsequent service of 'information' to the respondent, more so when it is beyond controversy that this Court had taken cognizance of the case with such being not available in the Judge's Papers and thus without having adverted to it. This surely is fatal to the continuance of this case."

Accordingly, court closed the contempt petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Senior Counsel S. Sanal Kumar (Amicus Curiae)

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy (Party -in-person)

Case No: Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 2/ 2023

Case Title: Suo Motu v Yeshwanth Shenoy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 666