In a judgment, 2024, the Supreme Court of India clarified a crucial aspect of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, ruling that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra in the case of Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors v. Prakash Kumar Dixit, bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 8129-8130 of 2024, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16785-16786 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The case originated from disciplinary proceedings against Prakash Kumar Dixit, a former Officer Commanding of the B/30 Battalion, CRPF, who was removed from service in July 1995 due to alleged misconduct. Following the rejection of his appeal against the order of removal, Dixit filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which led to a series of legal proceedings.
On December 24, 2019, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the order of removal, directing that a minor penalty be imposed instead, and ordered Dixit’s reinstatement without back wages but with all consequential benefits, including seniority and promotions.
Despite being reinstated in March 2021 and later promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant, Dixit filed contempt proceedings, claiming non-compliance with the court’s directions regarding seniority and promotions. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court found the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) and DIG (Personnel) guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the court’s orders.
Key Legal Issues Involved
The case brought into focus several significant legal issues, particularly the interpretation of Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The primary question was whether an appeal under Section 19 is maintainable against an order that does not impose a punishment for contempt but merely finds a party guilty.
In this context, the Supreme Court examined the principles laid down in the precedent-setting case of Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda [(2006) 5 SCC 299], which established that an appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that while the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had found the appellants guilty of contempt, no punishment had been imposed, thereby making the Letters Patent Appeal against the order non-maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court noted:
> “An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.”
The Court further observed that the Single Judge’s order included a finding of entitlement for Dixit to be promoted to the rank of Inspector General (IG), which was beyond the purview of contempt proceedings. Such directions related to the merits of the dispute between the parties and should not have been adjudicated within the contempt proceedings.
> “Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties will not be in the exercise of ‘jurisdiction to punish for contempt’ and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act.”
Also Read
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment dated May 10, 2024, which had rejected the Letters Patent Appeal as non-maintainable. The Supreme Court restored the Letters Patent Appeal to the file of the Division Bench for consideration on its merits.
Parties and Representation
The appellants in the case, Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors, were represented by senior counsel Sanjay Ghosh, while the respondent, Prakash Kumar Dixit, argued through his legal team.
