VITUSAH OBEROI AND ORS. versus COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 02-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(20 I 7] 1 S.C.R. 25 
VITUSAH OBEROI AND ORS. 
V • 
. COUR! OF ITS OWN MOTION 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of2007) 
JANUARY 02, 2017 
[T. S. THAKUR, C.J.I. AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Contempt of Supreme Court -
P-ower of High Court to initiate contempt proceedings - Held: There 
is nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Art.215 of the 
Constitution which can be said to empower the High Court to initiate 
proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior 
Court like the .Supreme Court of India - As a matter of fact, the 
Supreme Court under Art.129 and High Court under Art.215 of the 
Constitution are both declared to be Courts of Record - The power 
to punishfor co111e111pt vested in a Court of Record under Art.215 
does not, however, extendto punishing for the contempt of a superior 
court - Such a power has never been recognised as an attribute of 
a court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon 
the High Courts under Art.215 - The power to punish under Art.215 
is limited to the contempt of the High Courts or courts subordinate 
to the High Court - If Supreme Court does not, despite the 
availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for 
its contempt, th.ere is no question of a Court subordinate to the 
Supreme Court doing so - Constitution of India - Art.215. 
Allowing the appeals, the Conrt 
HELD: 1. The genesis of the suo motu proceedings initiated 
by the High Court lay in the publication of the articles, stories 
and write ups questioning the propriety of certain orders passed 
by a two-Jndge bench of the Supreme Court·of which Justice 
Y.K.S. was the Presiding Judge. The publications were actually 
seen as contemptuo·us vis-a-vis the Supreme Court. No part of 
the publications referred to the High Court of Delhi or any other 
High Court for that matter. The publications did not refer to any 
Judge or any order of any Court subordinate to the High .Court 
of Delhi. There is nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 
or in Article 215 of the Constitution which can be said to empower 
25 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
26 . 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
' .. ) 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 1 S.C.R. 
the High Court to initiate proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for 
the contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India. 
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court under Article 129 and 
High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution are both 
declared to be Courts of Record. One of the recognised attributes 
of a court of record is the power to punish for its contempt aud 
the contempt of courts subordinate to it. Articles 129 and 215, 
while declaring the Supreme Court and the High Courts as Courts 
of Record, recognise the power vested in them to punish for their 
own contempt. The use of the expression "including" in the said 
provisions is explanatory in character. It signifies that the Supreme 
Court and the High Courts shall, as Courts of Records, exercise 
all such powers as are otherwise available to them including the 
power to punish.for their own contempt. [Paras 7, 10) (29-H; 30-
C; 31-B-D) 
2. The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of 
Record under Article 215 does not, however, extend to punishing 
for the contempt of a superior court. Such a power has never 
been recognised as an attribute of a court of record nor has the 
same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts under 
Article 215. The power to punish under Article 215 is limited io 
the contempt of the High Court or courts subordinate to the High 
Court. There was no way the High Court could justify invoking 
that power to punish for the contempt of a superior court. That 
is particularly so when the superior court's power to punish for 
its contempt has been in no uncertain terms recognised by Article 
129 of the Constitution. The availability of the power under Article 
129 and its plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could 
never have been intended to empower the High Courts to punish 
for the contempt of the Supreme Court. [Para 11) [33-A-C) 
Delhi Judicial Service As~ociation vs .. State of Gujarat 
(1991) 3 SCR 936 : (1991) 4 SCC 406 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1991] 3 SCR 936 
referred to 
Para 10 
CRJMJNAL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1234 of2007. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2007 of the High Court 
VITUSAH OBEROI AND ORS. v. COURT OF ITS OWN 
27 
MOTION 
of Delhi in Contemp

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