Holding

While dealing with a contempt application, the court may only determine compliance with the original order and cannot review its correctness or issue additional directions, as such acts constitute an impermissible exercise of review jurisdiction.

Summary

The Union of India filed a civil contempt petition alleging non‑compliance with directions given in a writ judgment against Subedar Devassy. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the contempt proceeding, finding no contempt, but thereafter issued additional directions, which the Union challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a court exercising contempt jurisdiction may only examine whether the original order, which has attained finality, has been complied with; it cannot review the correctness of that order or issue new directions. Consequently, any further directions given in contempt proceedings are invalid. The Court disposed of the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s additional directions.

Issues considered

Whether a court exercising contempt jurisdiction can examine the correctness of the original order and issue additional directions beyond the order alleged to be disobeyed.
Whether a party aggrieved by an order should raise the grievance in a contempt proceeding or approach the court that passed the order or an appellate court.
Validity of the High Court's additional directions issued after dismissing the contempt petition.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 2(b)

Subjects

contempt of courtreview jurisdictionorder complianceadditional directionscivil contemptSupreme CourtHigh Courtjudicial reviewContempt of Courts Act

Judgment

)
A
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
SUBEDAR DEV ASSY PY

JANUARY I 0, 2006
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
\

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971---Sections 2(b) and 12-Civil contempt--
Initiation of contempt proceedings on ground that earlier directions of Court C
wer.e not complied with-Court exercising contempt jurisdiction giving
additional direction-Validity of-Held, not valid-While dealing with an
application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-
compliance with which is alleged-It cannot test correctness or otherwise of
the order or give additional direction or delete any direction-That would be
exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation D
of contempt proceedings-Same is impermissible and indefensible.

Respondent had filed ~ writ petition which was disposed of with
certain directions. Alleging that the directions were not complied with, a
petition was filed for initiation of contempt proceedings. High Court
dropped the proceedings by accepting the explanation of appellants, that E
the directions have been complied with, as reasonable. The Court
specifically held that from the steps taken by the alleged contemr.1rs, it
could not be said that the action of the appellants was in any manner,
contemptuous or disrespectful. But having held so, the Court gave certain
further directions, which form the subject matter llf challenge in this F
present appeal.

It was contended before this Court that the further directions given
by High Court have no sanctity in law.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court G
HELD: I. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court
is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which
has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be

303 H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 1 S.C.R.

A permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision
which had not been assailed and to take a view different from what was
taken in the earlier decision. 1305-F-GI

K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, [200lf l0 SCC 496, relied on.

B 2. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who
is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in
the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the
order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if
according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has
C necessarily to be agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising
contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original
proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment
or order. 1305-G-H; 306-A-Bf
Nia::: Mohd. v. State of Haryana, fl994f 6 SCC 332, distinguished.
D
. Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (20041 7 SCC 261:
T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, (19951 5 SCC 619 and Mohd. Iqbal
Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather 1199414 SCC 34, referred to. 1306-C-Ef

3. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its
E opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither
practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that
passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness
or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right
or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court
F would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an
application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order,
non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what
should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot
traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the
order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be
G exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for
initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and
indefensible. ; •
(306-F-HI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos .. 1066 of
H 2000.
U.O.l. v. SUBEDAR DEVASSY PV [PASAYA'!". J.] 305
)
From the Judgment and Order dated 3 .12.1997 of the Madhya Pradesh A
High Court in Contempt Petition No. 195 of 1997.

Vikas Singh, ASG Ms. Shilpa Singh, Ms. Amrita Narayan and Mrs.
Anil Katiyar for the Appellants.

Anil Kumar Bakshi, M.P.S. Tomar, D.P. Chaturvedi and T.S. Choudhary B
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT.PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is from an order passed
by a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in contempt C
proceedings. The respondent had filed a writ petition .(W.P. No.451111996)
which was disposed of with certain directions. Alleging that the directions
were not complied with, a petition was filed for initiation of contempt
proceedings. Response was filed by the appellants taking a positive stand that
the directions have been complied with and whatever was to be legally done
has been so done. After taking note of the stand taken by the present appellants D
who were respondents in the contempt proceeding, learned single Judge
dropped the contempt proceeding by accepting the explanation of the
respondents as reasonable. It was specifically noted that from the steps taken
by the alleged contemnors, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents
in the contempt proceedings, i.e. the present appellant, was, in any manner, E
contemptuous or disrespectful. Having said that, certain further directions
were given. The directions given form the subject matter of challenge in this
appeal. According to Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Addi. Solicitor Ger.era!, after
having held that there was no contempt involved, further directions given
have no sanctity in law. The order, however, is supported by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent. F
While· dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really
concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which' has received
its finality bad been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a
court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision. whicgh had not been G
assailed and to take a view different from what was taken in the earlier
decision. A similar view was taken in K.G. Derasari v. Union of India,
[2001] 10 SCC 496. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is
alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the
judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, H
306 SUPREME COL:RT REPORTS [2006J I S.C.R.

A it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him
the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated
before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot
take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not
dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Though strong reliance
was placed by learned counsel for the appellants on a three-Judge Bench
B decision in Nia:. Mohd. v. State of Haryana, [1994] 6 SCC 332 we find that
the same has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the
question arose about the impossibility to obey the order. If that was the stand
of the appellants, the least it could have done was to assail correctness of the
judgment before the higher court.
c The above position was highlighted in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of
Jharkhand and Ors .. [2004) 7 SCC 261.

On the question of impossibility to carry out the direction, the views
expressed in TR. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, (1995) 5 SCC 619 need to
D be noted. It was held that when the claim inter se had been adjudicated and
had attained finality, it is not open to the respcndent to go behind the orders
and truncate the effect thereof by hovering over the rules to get around the
result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the order passed by a court.

In Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, (1994) 4 SCC 34, it
E was held that if a party is aggrieved by the order, he should take prompt steps
to invoke appellate proceedings and cannot ignore the order and plead about
the difficulties of implementation at the time contempt proceedings are
initiated.

If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion
F is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor
feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or
invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the
order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order
has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable
G for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot
traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other
words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have
been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or
otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction.
That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application
H for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and
U.0.1. v. SUBEDAR DEVASSY PY [PASAYAT. J.] 307
indefensible. A
We notice that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the
exercise directed to be undertaken was in fact undertaken. The respondent
was given promotion and in the meantime he has retired. That being so, it is
not necessary to go into the correctness of the direction given, except clarifying
~~~~~· B
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
\

B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.

-~
c

,,