Contempt Action Not Warranted Unless Clear Case Of Unexplainable Wilful Disobedience Is Made Out: Telangana High Court

The observation came from Justice P. Naveen Rao:

"Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests...Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority."

The Petitioners claimed ownership of the land in question and alleged that the unofficial Respondents had fraudulently obtained building permissions from the Municipality and started unauthorised construction over their land.

It was stated that the Municipality Commissioner, without issuing any notice to them and without verifying the documents, granted said building permissions.

The Court had passed interim order in the matter, restraining any further construction. The Municipality Commissioner was also directed to ensure the same.

However, it is alleged that despite the interim order, unofficial respondents completed the construction during pandemic and started residing therein.

The allegation was refuted by submitting that from the reading of interim order, he understood that he should not undertake further construction, if there is no building permission, whereas he was having valid building permission, and thus, he undertook further construction. 

The bench observed that once an order is passed by the Court not to act in a particular manner, that order must be followed in true letter and spirit. The sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramount to a society governed by law. Otherwise, the very edifice of democracy breaks and anarchy reigns in.

"The Contempt of Courts Act is intended to correct a person deviating the norm and trying to breach the law/ assuming law on to himself. It intends to secure confidence of the people in the administration of justice by disciplining those erring in disobeying the orders of the Court. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines 'civil contempt' to mean wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court." The Court said

The bench further observed that disobedience of an order of court, whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex parte or upon hearing both parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into disrespect or disregard (Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. K.Appa Rao3). The power, to punish for contempt, is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. (Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar4).

The Court laid down the following conditions that need to be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt:

"(i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or an undertaking given to a court; (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court (or breach of undertaking given to a court); and (iii) such disobedience of the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or breach of undertaking must be wilful. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai (supra)]."

The bench observed that it behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished. Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is the same as in other criminal cases, it said. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/ rights, including benefit of doubt, it added.

In view of the above, the court opined that it cannot be said that the actions of respondent-contemnors amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court, warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Contemnors were discharged.

Case Title: Ganta Sudheer Kumar versus Sri T Nagi Reddy, Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District & others 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 72 

Click Here To Read/Download Order