UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SUBEDAR DEVASSY PY

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 10-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
\ 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SUBEDAR DEV ASSY PY 
JANUARY I 0, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971---Sections 2(b) and 12-Civil contempt--
Initiation of contempt proceedings on ground that earlier directions of Court C 
wer.e not complied with-Court exercising contempt jurisdiction giving 
additional direction-Validity of-Held, not valid-While dealing with an 
application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-
compliance with which is alleged-It cannot test correctness or otherwise of 
the order or give additional direction or delete any direction-That would be 
exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation D 
of contempt proceedings-Same is impermissible and indefensible. 
Respondent had filed ~ writ petition which was disposed of with 
certain directions. Alleging that the directions were not complied with, a 
petition was filed for initiation of contempt proceedings. High Court 
dropped the proceedings by accepting the explanation of appellants, that E 
the directions have been complied with, as reasonable. The Court 
specifically held that from the steps taken by the alleged contemr.1rs, it 
could not be said that the action of the appellants was in any manner, 
contemptuous or disrespectful. But having held so, the Court gave certain 
further directions, which form the subject matter llf challenge in this F 
present appeal. 
It was contended before this Court that the further directions given 
by High Court have no sanctity in law. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court 
is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which 
has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be 
303 
G 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 1 S.C.R. 
A permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision 
which had not been assailed and to take a view different from what was 
taken in the earlier decision. 1305-F-GI 
K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, [200lf l0 SCC 496, relied on. 
B 
2. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily 
concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who 
is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in 
the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the 
order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if 
according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has 
C necessarily to be agitated before the higher Court. The Court exercising 
contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original 
proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment 
or order. 1305-G-H; 306-A-Bf 
D 
Nia::: Mohd. v. State of Haryana, fl994f 6 SCC 332, distinguished. 
. Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (20041 7 SCC 261: 
T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan, (19951 5 SCC 619 and Mohd. Iqbal 
Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather 1199414 SCC 34, referred to. 1306-C-Ef 
3. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its 
E opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither 
practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that 
passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness 
or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right 
or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court 
F would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an 
application for contempt, the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, 
non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what 
should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot 
traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the 
order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be 
G exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for 
initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and 
indefensible. 
; • 
(306-F-HI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos .. 1066 of 
H 2000. 
) 
U.O.l. v. SUBEDAR DEVASSY PV [PASAYA'!". J.] 
305 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3 .12.1997 of the Madhya Pradesh A 
High Court in Contempt Petition No. 195 of 1997. 
Vikas Singh, ASG Ms. Shilpa Singh, Ms. Amrita Narayan and Mrs. 
Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. 
Anil Kumar Bakshi, M.P.S. T

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