Contempt action premature without exhaustion of corrective remedies: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated prematurely when the alleged contemnor is already using corrective legal options. A Division Bench of the high court has ruled that the essence of contempt jurisdiction lies in preserving the sanctity of judicial orders, but it must be exercised sparingly and within established legal contours.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma was hearing an appeal against an order passed by the Contempt Bench entertaining contempt proceedings despite a pending petition challenging the disputed action.
The court stressed that Contempt Court was required to exercise restraint to prevent premature or inappropriate actions, when a petition against the order was still pending to avoid premature or mis-constituted actions.
The Bench asserted that contempt jurisdiction was not a substitute for enforcing substantive relief. Any relief granted by the Contempt Court was required to align strictly with the operative portion of the judicial order allegedly violated. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of “Sudhir Vasudeva versus M. George Ravishekaran”, the Bench observed that substantive reliefs falling outside the purview of the order under scrutiny could not be granted in contempt proceedings.
The judgment clarified that where a litigant had availed corrective remedies to challenge the validity of an order, the Contempt Court was required to defer proceedings until the resolution of those remedies. The principle, the court held, prevented undue hardship or premature penal consequences to the contemnor, particularly if the corrective process nullified the order in question.
The judgment also interpreted the statutory phrase “jurisdiction to punish for contempt” under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Rejecting the contention raised by a party that an appeal was not maintainable unless punishment had been imposed, the court clarified that any adverse order passed in contempt proceedings could be appealed.
At a glance
The court held that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated prematurely if the alleged contemnor is actively pursuing corrective judicial remedies.
It clarified that contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for enforcing substantive reliefs. Relief granted in contempt proceedings must strictly align with the operative portion of the order allegedly violated.
The court emphasized that the pendency of a writ petition necessitates restraint by the Contempt Court to avoid premature or mis-constituted actions.
It was noted that corrective remedies, like the pending writ petition, constitute a fresh cause of action. Contempt proceedings should be deferred until such remedies are resolved.
The judgment reiterated that contempt cannot grant substantive reliefs beyond the order under scrutiny.
The court clarified that an appeal is maintainable against any adverse order in contempt proceedings, not just those imposing punishment.
The judgment highlighted the need to avoid undue hardship or premature penal consequences for the alleged contemnor, especially when the corrective process could nullify the disputed order.
