C. ELUMALAI & ORS.versusA.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.

                         [2009] 4 S.C.R. 774


A                      C. ELUMALAI & ORS.                               ...
                                  V.
                   A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.
                Contempt Petition No.118 of 2007
                                IN
B         Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19924 of 2006
                         MARCH 20, 2009
     [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ]
         Constitution of India, 1950:
c        Article 129 - Contempt of Court - Disobeyance of order
    of Supreme Court - Offer of apology - Held: Apology not
    accepted - There was willful and deliberate violation of
    Supreme Court's order - Therefore in exercise of jurisdiction
    under Article 129, exemplary cost of Rs. 2 lacs imposed on each
D   contemnor - Administration of justice - Contempt of Court.         .,,
          In the present contempt petition, the stand of
    petitioner was that in violation of the order passed by this
    Court, third party rights were created. The respondent 1-
    contemnor No.1 submitted that he was victim of
E   circumstances and had no intention to disobey the orders
    of this Court and therefore his unconditional apology
    offered should be accepted.                                               ...
         Allowing the contempt petition, the Court
F         HELD: 1. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless
    apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good
    grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is
    liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time
    when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose
G   punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an              ..      \

    act of a cringing coward. Apology is not a weapon of
    defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it
    intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is
    intended to be evidence of real contriteness. [Paras 4, 5]
    [ 777-D-F]                    774
H
                         C. ELUMALAI & ORS. V AGL. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.           775


        J                  L.D. Jaikwal v. State of UP 1984 (3) SCC 405; TV A
                      Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Ashok Khat and Another 2006(5)
                      SCC 1; Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Oharam Godha and
                      Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 1; Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State
                      of Bihar and Ors. 1999 (7) SCC 569; Anil Ratan Sarkar and
                      Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 21; All Bengal B
                      Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh and Ors.
                      (2007) 11 sec 374 - relied on.
                           Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd. 1974 AC 273:
                      (1973) 3 All ER 54 - referred to.
                                                                                     c
                            2. Punishing a person for contempt of Court is indeed
                      a drastic step and normally such action should not be
                      taken. At the same time, however, it is not only the power
                      but the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the
                      dignity of Courts and majesty of law which may call for
                                                                                  D
            \(        such extreme step. If for proper administration of justice
                      and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by
                      a Court, it is required to take strict view, it should not
                      hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt. [Para
                      13] [ 780-G-H]
                                                                                  E
                            Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai & Anr. v. Patel Chandrakant
                      Dhulabhai & Ors. 2008(10) SCALE 349 - relied on .
.....
                 •          3. There has been a wilful and deliberate violation of
                      this Court's order. Therefore, in exercise of the court's
                      jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution of India F
                      exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/- is imposed on each of the
                      contemnors. In case of non payment, the contemnors
                      shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.

... ..               ·Any "third party right created would not be of any
                      consequence. [Para 15] [ 781-B-C]                            G
                                          Case Law Reference
                           1984 (3) sec 405          relied on      [Para 5]
                           2006(5) sec 1             relied on      [Para 6]
                                                                                     H
    776        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A         (2003) 11 sec 1            relied on            [Para 8)
          1999 (7) sec 569           relied on            [Para 9)
          2002 (4) sec 21            relied on            [Para 10]
           (2007) 11 sec 37 4        relied on            [Para 11]
8
          (1973) 3 All ER 54         referred to          [Para 12]
          2008(10) SCALE 349         relied on            [Para 14]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
c   No.118 of 2007
                                     IN
          SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) N0.19924 OF 2006
         From the Judgement and Order dated 22.11.2006 of the
o   Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 336 &
    337 of 2006.

        K.K. Mani, R. Thiagarajan, CKR Lenin Sekar, for the
    Appellants.

E        P.S. Narasimhan, V. Balaji, TS. Shanthi, Rakesh K.
    Sharma, 8. Rajendran, Pravesh Thakur, Narendra Kumar, for
    the Respondents.

          The Judgement of the Court was delivered by                      •
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
F
         1. Alleging violation of the order passed by this Court, the
  present contempt petition has been filed. Stand of the petitioners
  is that by order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP(C) No. 19924 of 2006,
  this court had directed that the High Court which was considering
G CS No. 597 of 2006 in the original side shall make an effort to          ~   •
  dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of
  receipt of the order. It was also directed that till completion of
  the suit the parties shall not create any third party right. It is the
  case of the petitioners that in clear violation of this court's order,
H third party rights have been created. Several affidavits have been
    C. ELUMALAI & ORS. V. A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.              777
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

filed by the respondent No.1-alleged contemnor No.1. But no A
response has been filed by the respondent No.2- alleged
contemnor No.2.

     2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there
has been conscious violation of the orders passed by this court.
The unconditional apologies offered at various stages are              8
intended to cover up the violation. Even after filing of the first
affidavit containing alleged unconditional apology, the
subsequent conduct shows continued violation.

     3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-contemnor              c
No.1 submitted that the factual scenario clearly shows that there
was never any intention to flout the orders of this court. Rather,
the respondent No.1-contemnor No.1 is a victim of
circumstances and therefore the unconditional apology offered
should be accepted.
                                                                       D
     4. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered
at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is
shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the
apology is offered at the time when the contemn or finds that the
court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology         E
and becomes an act of a cringing coward.

      5. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty
of their offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea,
but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was
noted in L.O. Jaikwa/ v State of UP [1984 (3) SCC 405]:                F

     "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the "slap-say
     sorry- and forget" school of thought in administration of
     contempt jurisprudence. Saying "sorry" does not make
     the slapper taken the slap smart less upon the said G
     hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper
     apology and expression of sorrow should come from the
     heart and nor from the pen. For it is one thing to "say" sorry
     - it is another to "feel" sorry."
     6. The above position was highlighted in T. V.                    H
    778       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Ashok Khat and Another [2006(5)
    sec 11
        7. The next question is whether for disobedience of the
  order passed by this Court, the respondents/contemners are
  liable to punishment? In this connection, we may refer to some
B of the legal provisions. Article 129 of the Constitution declares
  this Court (Supreme Court) to be "a Court of Record having all
  the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for the
  contempt of itself'. Clause (c) of Section 94 of the Code of Civil
  Procedure, 1908 enacts that in order to prevent the ends of
C justice from being defeated, the Court may, commit the person
  guilty of disobedience of an order of interim injunction to civil
  prison and direct his property be attached and sold. Rule 2A of
  Order XXXIX as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure
  (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) reads thus:
D                                                                          •
          2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of
          injunction-(1) In the case of disobedience of any
          injunction granted or other order made under Page 3178
          rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the
          injunction was granted or the order made, the Court
E         granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to
          which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the
          property of the person guilty of such disobedience or
          breach to be attached, and may also order such person
          to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding
F         three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his
          release.
          (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in
          force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if
          the disobedience or breach continues, the property
G
          attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court
          may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured
          party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled
          thereto.
H         8. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v Oharam Godha and
       C. ELUMALAI & ORS. V A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.             779
                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J ]
4   Ors. (2003) 11 sec 1, this Court had an occasion to consider A
    the concept of 'wilful disobedience' of an order of the Court. It
    was stated that 'wilful' means an act or omission which is done
    voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law
    forbids or with th.e specific intent to fail to do something the law
    requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to B
    disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it
    signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the
    purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be
    judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each
    case.                                                              c
          9. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Ors. v. State of Bihar and
    Ors. [1999 (7) SCC 569} it was held that for holding a person to
    have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful
    disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. But it was
    indicated that even negligence and carelessness may amount D
    to contempt. It was further observed that issuance of notice for
    contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching
    consequences, and as such, they should be resorted to only
    when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order is .
    made out. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order E
    must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the
    Court's order and if such allegation is proved, contempt can be
    said to have been made out, not otherwise. The Court noted
    that power to punish for contempt is intended to main_tain
    effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of F
    the course of justice.

        10. In the celebrated decision of Attorney General v Times
    Newspaper Ltd. 1974 AC 273 : (1973) 3 All ER 54: (1973) 3
    WLR 298; Lord Diplock stated:
         "There is an element of public policy in punishing civil G
         contempt, since the administration of justice would be
         undermined if the order of any court of law could be
         disregarded with impunity."

         11. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. H
    780      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A   (2002 (4) SCC 21), this Court held that the Contempt of Courts
    Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing
    confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order
    passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and
    not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or
B   breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There
    can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court
    orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding
    or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a
    permissible defence. It was observed that power to punish a
    person for contempt is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the
c   hands of Judiciary but that by itself operates as a string of caution
    and cannot be used unless the Court is satisfied beyond doubt
    that the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the
    order of the Court. The power under the Act must be exercised
    with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger interest
D
    of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery
    system. Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold a
    person guilty of civil contempt. The element of willingness is an
    indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the
    meaning of the Act.
E
         12. In All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v.
    Raghabendra Singh and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 374, this Court
    considered several cases and observed that wilful and
    deliberate act of violation of interim order passed by a
F   competent Court would amount to contempt of Court.
          13. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a
    person for contempt of Court is indeed a drastic step and
    normally such action should not be taken. At the same time,
    however, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to
G   uphold and maintain the dignity of Courts and majesty of law
    which may call for such extreme step. If for proper administration
    of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed
    by a Court, it is required to take strict view, it should not hesitate
    in wielding the potent weapon of contempt.
H
       C. ELUMALAI & ORS. V. A.G.L. IRUDAYARAJ & ANR.              781
                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"       14. The above position was highlighted in Patel Rajnikant A
    Ohulabhai & Anr. V Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai & Ors.
    [2008(10) SCALE 349].
           15. On consideration of various aspects, we are satisfied
    that there has been a wilful and deliberate violation of this Court's
    order. We, therefore, in exercise of the court's jurisdiction under
                                                                          8·
    Article 129 of the Constitution of India impose exemplary cost
    of Rs.2,00,000/- on each of the contemnors to be deposited to
    the registry of the High Court within a period of eight weeks. On
    deposit being made, the amount shall be transferred to the
    National Legal Services Authority. In case of non payment, the C
    contemnors shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months
    each. Any third party right created after order dated 19.3.2007
    in SLP No. 19924 of 2006 is of no consequence and stands
    set aside.
                                                                          D
    D.G.                                  Contempt petition allowed.