Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. For the second part of his argument, namely that this Court cannot take cognizance of the contempt committed by the opposite party of its own Court, on the application moved by the petitioner, reliance has been placed by learned Counsel on Section 15. Sub-section (2) of the 1971 Act. which reads thus:

In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate Court the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General, or in relation to a Union territory, by such law Officer as the Central Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf." Learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that the way in which subsection (2) of Section 15 is drafted leaves no room for doubt that Sub-section (1) of Section 15 relates to the contempt of High Court and Supreme Court only and that it is only Sub-section (2) of Section 15 which relates to the Criminal contempt of a subordinate Court. It was urged that the mandate contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 15 is that "cognizance of Criminal contempt of a subordinate Court cannot be taken by the High Court except--
Every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

14. We have already referred to the Special Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1926 All 623 (SB) (supra) and to the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 186 (supra) wherein it has been held that this Court as a Court of Record also possessed the power to punish the contempt of subordinate Courts. Since Article 215 states that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the Powers of such a Court it follows that through that Article the Constitution preserved to the High Courts its power as a Court of Record to punish contempt of subordinate Courts. No doubt a special reference is made in Article 215 to the power of the High Court to punish contempt of itself. That has only been done to emphasise that particular power of the High Court. The aforesaid words do not exclude what the preceding part of Article 215 preserves to or confers on the High Court If the intention of the makers of the Constitution while enacting Article 215 were to preserve to the High Court only its power to punish its own contempt it would not have stated in the first part thereof that the High Court shall have all the powers of a Court of Record.

As already stated earlier Section 10 of 1971 Act explicitly states that every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, power and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempt of itself. There is no controversy before me that under Section 10 of the new Act the High Court can act suo motu to punish its own contempt. Section 10 confers the same jurisdiction on the High Court to punish the contempt of subordinate Court as it possesses to punish its own contempt. Section 10 is therefore consistent with the powers of this Court as a Court of Record preserved by Article 215.

22. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 is not worded in a negative form. If it had contained any negative words such as in the case of a criminal contempt of a subordinate Court, action shall not be taken by High Court except on a reference made by ... there could be no choice but to interpret Sub-section (2) as restricting the power of the High Court regarding taking cognizance of the contempt of the subordinate Courts. Since no such words find place in Sub-section (2) of Section 15 it may not be inappropriate to interpret it in a manner so that it stands in harmony with Section 10 of the Act and Article 215 of the Constitution. Interpreting Section 15(2) in that manner, it should mean that it also confers a power on the Court concerned, on the Advocate General and, in relation to Union territory, on such Law Officer as the Central Government may notify, to move this Court to take cognizance of the contempt of the inferior Court. As already stated earlier, the High Court already possessed power by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution to take cognizance of the contempts of the Subordinate Court as well and Section 10 of the 1971 Act recognised that power. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Legislature to repeat in Section 15(2) that a High Court can also take action suo motu for punishing contempt of the subordinate Court. On the other hand nothing contained in Article 215 of the Constitution or Section 10 of the Act gave any right to a subordinate Court, of which the contempt is committed or to a Law Officer of the Government to move the Court for punishing the contempt of a subordinate Court. The Legislature, therefore enacted Section 15(2) merely to confer that power on the Court of which the contempt is committed as also on the Principal Law Officer of the Government.