Court exercising contempt jurisdiction to uphold Majesty of Law

August 25, 2022
Delhi high court

By Anuj Jhawar and Devika Mehra

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated May 02, 2022 in Sudesh Chhikara vs Dr. Naveen Aggarwal and Ors.1 has observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of law and that it cannot sit in appeal of the orders passed by the lower Courts and Tribunals.

Brief facts of the case

The Contempt Petition under consideration has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, inter alia alleging non-compliance of the order dated October 23, 2019 as passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11326/2019, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had directed District Magistrate (South-West), Delhi to decide the aspect of maintainability of the subject eviction petition filed by Respondent No.4 herein under provisions of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 seeking eviction of the Petitioner on the ground of non-maintenance and ill-treatment before proceeding with the same.

As a consequence of the order dated October 23, 2019, passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11326/2019, the District Magistrate dismissed Case No.1/82/2017 vide Order dated October 24, 2019 on the ground that the subject matter of the case was not covered by the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Therefore, it was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that an appeal was filed against the District Magistrate’s order dated October 24, 2019 before the Divisional Commissioner, and despite objections to the maintainability of the appeal, Divisional Commissioner remanded the case back for hearing to District Magistrate vide order dated November 05, 2020. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, allowed the eviction application of Respondent No.4 vide order dated September 14, 2021, and the Divisional Commissioner on October 29, 2021 dismissed the stay application filed along with the appeal against the said Order.

The main issue before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was whether the orders dated September 14, 2021 and October 29, 2021, as passed by the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner, respectively, are contrary to or non-compliant with the order dated October 23, 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11326/2019.

Judgment by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 2017 defines “civil contempt” as “wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court”. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction has been delineated time and again in various judgements of the Supreme Court, such as In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra4 , and Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Private Ltd.5 . The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that contempt jurisdiction is invoked to ensure that public respect and confidence in the judicial process remains unimpaired. This jurisdiction is sui generis, and allows the Court to exercise such power to punish a person who is guilty of contempt for the sole purpose of preventing non-adherence to the rule of law. In order to exercise such jurisdiction, the Courts must act judicially, and must not be hypersensitive. Once the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court must proceed with the contempt so as to uphold the majesty of law.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the order of the Court dated October 23, 2019 had not been violated and that the District Magistrate had aptly considered the question of maintainability of the case of Respondent No.4 before proceeding with the merits of the case.

Conclusion
The issue of the present contempt petition was primarily regarding it being disguised as an appeal filed against the orders dated September 14, 2021 and October 29, 2021 as passed by the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner respectively. The Petitioner should take recourse to the appropriate remedies available to her in accordance with law, instead of invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Court in case of being aggrieved by any orders. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the majesty of law and cannot sit in appeal of orders passed by lower courts and tribunals.

[1]CONT.CAS(C) 371/2022
[2]Case No. 1/82/2017
[3](1995) 2 SCC 584
[4](1998) 4 SCC 592

Related Posts

India: Delhi High Court Go to Mediation for Cheque Bouncing

For more information please contact us at : info@ssrana.com