T.DEEN DAYAL versus THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 10-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

T. DEEN DAY AL 
A 
.v. 
'. 
THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA'PRADESH . 
SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 
I 
·. 
. . 
. . 
. 
[QR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Sections 2(c), 19(1) (b)-:-Election 
Petition before High. Court-:-Transfer applicatio~ filed-Baseless a/legation 
levelled against the Judge-Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated-Held, C 
the allegations :ex-facie contum"acious and the scurrilous attack was intended 
to· scandalise the Court-Guilty of contempt of court. 
Contempt of Courts Act, I 97 I : Section 20-Limitation-Contempt 
proceedings initiated on· 16.4.85-Allegation containing contempt affidavit 
filed on 27.3.85-Held Contempt proceedings not barred by li:nitation-Act D 
merely provides for limitation' to initiate the proceedings and not for the 
conclusion of contempt proceedings. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 215 and 329(b)-Election Petition 
filed before High Court-Held, High Court has jurisdiction to take action for 
co~tempt of Court while trying an election petition-Representation of the E 
People Act, 1951 : Ss. BOA and 98. · 
The appellant, a. candidate for biennial elections to Rajya Sabha filed an 
Election Petition in the High Court In the said election petition, the appellant 
filed a miscellaneous application dated 27.3.1985 requesting Hon'ble Chief F 
Justice of High Court to transfer the election petition before some other judge. 
Certain baseless allegations with a view to scandalise the Court were made 
in the application. Contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellant 
on 16.4.85 and the matter was heard by a Division Bench of High Court. The 
appellant was not regular in appearing before the Court and bailable and non-
bailable warrants were issued to secure. his presence. In the meantime th_e G 
appellant approached this Court for early disposal of the contempt petition. 
Directions were issued by this Court for disposing ofthe contempt petition 
within six weeks. The.High Court by its order dated 15.7.1989 held the 
appellant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to undergo simple 
imprisonment for a period of three months. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
39 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The contention of the appellant was that the contempt petition was time 
barred under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It was also 
contended that the High Court dealing with an election petition must be 
deemed functioning as an 'authority' only and not as a court and therefore 
has no jurisdiction to issue suo moto notice under the Contempt of Courts 
B Act 
Dismissing the appeal, ttiis Court 
HELD : 1. The allegations constituting the contempt are ex-facie 
contumacious and the scurrilous attack was intended to scandalise the court 
C within the meaning of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt 
of Courts Act, 1971. Such attack is punishable as contempt for the reason 
that it tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impairs confidence of 
the people in courts which are of prime importance to the litigants in the 
protection of their rights and liberties. (47-F] 
D 
Jn Re S. Mulgaokar, (1978) 3 SCC 339, held applicable. 
2. The High Court was right in holding that Section 20 of the Act 
merely provides for limitation to initiate the proceedings and not for the 
conclusion of contempt proceedings. The proceedings were initiated by order 
E dated 16.4.85 whereas the.allegations constituting contempt were contained 
in an affidavit filed on 27.3.1985. Besides the delay was on the part of the 
appellant also in not appearing before the Court on the date or' hearing, 
necessitating the High Court to issue initially bailable warrant and later on 
non-bailable warrant to secure his presence. Thus the contempt proceedings 
are not barred by limitation. [47-C-D] 
F 
3. The High Court has jurisdiction to take action for contempt of court 
as a 'Court ofrecord' under Article 215 of the Constitution, while trying an 
election petition. [47-A] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 451 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.89 of the Aridhra Pradesh High 
Court in Cont~mpt Case No. 60 of 1985. 
H 
Appellant-in-Person. 
... 
T.D. DAY AL v. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 4 J 
K. Ram Kumar, T.V.S. _Narasimhachari arid Ms. Asha, Nair .for the A 
Respondent. 
the Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. VEN KAT ASWAMI, J. This appeal under Section 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.