In a recent ruling in Soniya Nityanand and Others V. Ashish Wakhlu, the Allahabad High Court noted that the beginning of contempt of court proceedings cannot be done in a routine or careless manner.
Judges Om Prakash Shukla and Rajan Roy’s bench emphasized that courts must use appropriate mentality even when they are serving notice in contempt situations.
“Notification in a contempt case is not a regular or causal process. It necessitates giving the aforementioned facts and situations full consideration. Remember that the standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt, and that these actions are quasi-criminal in character. These judicial processes are far more rigorous than any other when it comes to resolving conflicts. These legal actions constitute an exercise of the High Court’s and the lower courts’ contempt penalty powers. Consequently, even at the outset of such actions, they ought to be used with caution and a reasonable and appropriate application of mind, the Court stated.
The Vice-Chancellor and a few members of the Executive Council (appellants) of King George’s Medical University in Lucknow filed an appeal with the court. The decision of a single judge to implead the appellants in a contempt of court case was challenged in the appeal.
The appellants contended that their impleadee in the civil contempt of court lawsuit against the University and its office bearers was incorrect. The case was started in 2020.
The appellants clarified that at the time of the accused act of contempt, they were not members of the Executive Council.
The individual who had brought the 2020 contempt case, they said, had attempted to intimidate the appellants merely by twisting their arms.
The appellants contended that a single High Court judge had mistakenly served them with notice in the contempt case, without first investigating whether the appellants were the subject of a prima facie charge of contempt.
The High Court’s Division Bench gave the appellants’ arguments some weight.
The Court made it clear that it is not offering a definitive judgment on the matter, although it did note that the appellants did not seem to have made any particular accusations of deliberate contempt.
It then instructed the lone judge overseeing the contempt case to think about releasing the appellants from it after they submitted an application for it.
The Division Bench also reaffirmed some guidelines that should be followed before a court can begin contempt of court proceedings before deciding how to proceed with the appeal on these terms.
The Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E was summarized by the Bench, which stated that the following conditions must be met before a notice of contempt may be issued:
(a) It must be preceded by an undertaking or a judicial order;
(b) The alleged contemnor ought to have received notice of this order and been urged to abide by it;
(c) Something must be done, or not done, that could be construed as deliberate disobedience or disregard for the said command or endeavor;
(d) The existence of the aforementioned jurisdictional facts or criteria must be mentioned in the contempt petition or in an application for impleadment;
(e) In order to establish a prima facie case of contempt of court, the contempt court must determine that these jurisdictional facts and criteria exist.
The Court further stressed that notice must be given to the alleged contemnors before impleading any party in a contempt case. This is so they can provide the proper facts to the contempt court. The Court stated that unless a prima facie case of contempt has been established from the evidence or records in the file, this is the standard practice.
Sandeep Kumar Ojha represented the respondent, and advocates Lalta Prasad Misra and Shubham Tripathi represented the appellants.
