The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a writ petition challenging the Advocate General’s refusal to grant permission for initiating criminal contempt proceedings is not maintainable. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla in the case of Arun Mishra vs. Advocate General (WRIT – C No. – 17851 of 2024).
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Arun Mishra, had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated May 7, 2024, passed by the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh. The order in question was issued in response to Mishra’s application seeking consent to file a criminal contempt application under Section 15(3)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary legal issue before the court was whether a writ petition could be entertained to challenge the Advocate General’s decision to refuse consent for initiating criminal contempt proceedings. The court, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Others (1998), held that such a writ petition is not maintainable.
The court observed:
“We are of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Division Bench dealing with the criminal contempt matters, in accordance with the High Court Rules and the decision of the Supreme Court noted above.”
The bench concurred with the submissions made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh). The court cited paragraphs 58 to 60 of the P.N. Duda judgment, which emphasized that “no purpose would be served by the court spending its time to find out whether the Attorney-General/Solicitor-General should have given a decision one way or the other.”
Important Observations
The court made several significant observations:
1. The role of the Attorney-General/Solicitor-General is more akin to that of an amicus curiae assisting the court in an administrative matter, rather than a quasi-judicial role determining a lis between parties.
2. The Attorney-General’s function includes screening complaints from the public to safeguard the valuable time of the court.
3. In cases where consent is refused, the petitioner is not without remedy. It is open to the petitioner to place the information in their possession before the court and request the court to take action.
