THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR versus RAJ KISHORE YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 24-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
A 
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 
v. 
RAJ KISHORE YADAV AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 1997 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., S.B. MAJMUDAR AND 
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of lndia:--Articles 215 and 225-Powers of High 
Cowt-Allahabad High Courts Rules, 1951-01. 35-E, R 4(a)-Framed by C 
Full Bench of the High Court-Civil Contenipt-Rule requiring that all civil 
contempt cases be presented before the Bench of a Single Judge constituted 
for the purpos~He/d valid, Not ultravires of Article 215. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sec. 2( d), 11, 23-civi/ Con-
·'·' temp~-Contempt Jurisdiction is an independent Jurisdiction of original 1zac D 
ture. 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 39, Rule 2-A-Nature and Ap-
plicability of-Analogy of Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P. C. not relevant in the context 
of validity of Rule 4(a) of Allahabad High Cowt Rules, 1951. 
Govemment of India Act, 1915-Section IO~Administration of High 
Courts. 
Govemment of India Act, 1935-Sections 223, 22(r-Powers of High 
Courts. · 
On 16.12.1989, an inten·m order was passed by a Division Bench of 
the High Court of Allahabad in a Writ petition staying the termination of 
services of ad hoc teachers, who were petitioners before the High Court. 
E 
F 
By an order dated 13.5.1993 a Single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
writ petition and issued directions to the concerned Respondent- G 
authorities. On 18.10.1993 respondent No. 1 moved an application for 
taking S!Jitable action against the concerned respondent in the writ peti-
tion on the allegation that they have committed contempt of court by 
flouting final order in the writ petition. On 9.11.1993, the original writ 
petitioners by an application submitted that the nomination of a Judge for H 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A hearing civil contempt of the High Court as per impugned rule 4(a) of the 
High Court Rules, militates against Article 215 of the Constitution of 
India. On 6.11.1996, the Division Bench of the High Court declared the 
impugned Rule as ultravires of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 
B 
The Registrar, High Court of Judicature of Allahabad filed a special 
'leave petition against the judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 rendered 
by a Division Bench. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Clause (a) of Rule 4, Chapter XXXV ·E of the Rule of High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad is valid and legal and not inconsistent 
with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. [432·A] 
2.1. A canjoint reading of Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 
D 1915, Section 223 of the Govt. of India Act, 1935 and Article 225 of the 
Constitution of India makes it clear that every High Court by its own rules . 
can provide for exercise of its jurisdiction, original or appellate by one or 
more judges or by division courts, consisting of two or more judges of the 
High Court and it is for the Chief Justice of each High Court to determine 
E which judge in each case is to sit alone or which judges of the Court whether 
with or without the Chief Justice are to constitute several division courts. 
In exercise of the aforesaid rule making power which inherited in all exist· 
ing High Court at the time of the advent of the Constitution of India and 
which was expressly saved by Article 225 of the Constitution of India the 
full court of the High Court had framed these rules in 1952. The procedure 
F 
for exercise for contempt jurisdiction can be laid down by tile High Court 
concerned by framing suitable rules vi de Section 23 of the Contempt of 
Courts Act, 1971. Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the said Rules the Chief Justice 
was entitled to nominate a learned Single Judge to decide civil contempt 
cases arising under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The aforesaid rule, 
therefore clearly falls in line with the constitutional scheme in connection 
G with the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus enactment of the 
impugned rule squarely falls within the administrative power of the High 
Court well prescribed by the aforesaid provisions. [436-F-H, 437·A·C] 
National Sewing thread Co. Ltd. v. Tames Chandwick Bros Ltd., AIR 
H (1953) SC 357, relied on. 
H.C. OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADv. R.K YADA V [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) 
431 
3.1. All that Article 215 states is that every High Court shall be a A 
court of record meaning thereby all the original record of the court will be 
preserved by the said court and it shall have all the powers of such a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.