BAL THACKREY versus HARISH PIMPALKHUTE AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 477 · Decided: 29-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BAL THACKREY 
v. 
HARISH PIMP ALKHUTE AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI 
AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 15-Criminal Cohtempt-
Petition by a party-Without cons~nt of Advocate-General-Accused held 
guilty of contempt by High Court-On appeal plea that directions of this C 
Court in P.N. Duda's case* not followed hence exercise of contempt 
jurisdiction by High Court was beyond legal sanctity-Doubting correctness 
o/Duda's case matter referred to larger Bench for reconsideration-Held: 
Present case is a proceeding initiated by a party and not suo-motu action 
taken by Court-In absence of mandatory requirement of taking consent of D 
Advocate-General petitions not maintainable-Since directions in Duda's 
case applicable only to suo motu cases, in the present case non-compliance 
of directions therein is of no consequence-The directions in the case have 
no effect of curtailing or denuding the power of High Court, hence are legal 
and valid-Direction to High Courts to frame Rule and/or practice directions 
on the line suggested in Duda's case. 
E 
Respondents filed two contempt petitions in High Court against the 
appellant u/s 15 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for having committed 
contempt of Court as postulated u/s 2(c) of the Act in a public speech. 
In one of the petitions consent of Advocate General was not sought at F 
ail. In another petition application was made to the Advocate General 
seeking permission to file the petition and stating therein that if no 
answer is receive<f from Advocate-General it would be presumed that 
permission had been granted. The petitions were filed without obtaining 
the consent. High Court held the appellant guilty of contempt. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that directions given 
in P.N. Duda 's case* were not followed by High Court inasmuch as the 
informative papers styled as contempt petitions were not placed before 
the Chief Justice of the High Court for suo motu action and therefore 
G 
the exercise was uncalled for and beyond legal sanctity. Division Bench H 
477 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of this Court opined that directions approved in P.N. Duda 's case were 
of far reaching consequences as the power under Section 15 of the Act 
to punish contemnors for contempt rests with the Court and in Duda 's 
case, they seem to have been denuded to rest with Chief Justice on the 
administrative side. Doubting the correctness of the observations in 
B Duda 's case, and for reconsideration of the same, the appeal were 
referred to large Bench. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The direction of Duda's case when seen and appreciated 
~ in the light of object and nature of the power of the Court in contempt 
jurisdiction and the powers of the Chief Justice, it would be clear that 
the same prescribe the procedure to be followed by High Courts to 
ensure smooth working and streamlining of such contempt actions which 
are intended to be taken up by the Court suo motu on its own motion. 
D These directions have not effect of curtailing or denuding the power of 
the High Court. It is also to be borne in mind that the frequent use of 
suo motu power on the basis of information furnished in a contempt 
petition otherwise incompetent under Section 15 of the Act may render 
the procedural safeguards of Advocate-General's consent nugatory. 
The directions givt!n in Duda 's case are legal and valid. [ 486-C, D, Ej 
E 
*P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Ors., [1988) 3 SCC 167, affirmed. 
Commissioner, Agra v. Rohtas Singh, [1988) 1 SCC 349; Superme 
Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409; 
F Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jaba/pur Through Registrar, 
[1993) Supp. 1 SCC 529; Dr. L.P. Misra v. State of U.P., [1998) 7 SCC 
379; S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow v. Vinay 
Chandra Misra, [1981] 1 SCC 436 and J.R. Parashar, Advocate and Ors. 
v. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate and Ors., [2004) 6 SCC 735, relied on. 
G 
2.1. The requirement of obtaining consent in writing of the Advocate-
H 
General for making motion by any person is mandatory. A motion 
under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 not in conformity 
with the requirements of that Section is not maintainable. [487-B) 
State of Kera/a v. MS. Mani and Ors., [2001) 8 SCC 82, referred to. 
BAL THACKREY v. HARISH PIMPALKHUTE 
479 
2.2. The procedure of Section 15 is requ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.