AIR 2012 SC (Criminal) 326

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. H. Kapadia, C.J.I., K. S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar , JJJ

( A ) Contempt of Court Act (70 of 1971) S. 2 (b), 2(c), 12 — Civil and criminal contempt — Difference — Conduct of contemnor — Relevant to decide nature of contempt.Civil contempt would be wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court or wilful disobedience of any judgment or order of the Court, while criminal contempt would deal with the cases by words, spoken or written, signs or any manner or doing of any act which scandalizes, prejudices or interfers, obstructs or even tends to obstruct the due course of any judicial proceedings, any court and the administration of justice in any other manner. The conduct of the parties, the act of disobedience and the attendant circumstances are relevant to consider whether a case would fall under civil contempt or a criminal contempt. For example, disobedience of an order of a Court simplicitor would be civil contempt but when it is coupled with conduct of the parties which is contemptuous, prejudicial and is in flagrant violation of the law of the land, it may be treated as a criminal contempt. (Paras89)

( B ) Contempt of Court Act (70 of 1971) S. 2 (b) — Civil contempt — Violation of order of Court — Must be intentional and wilful.In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the Courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the Court, even to constitute a civil contempt. (Paras1011)

( C ) Contempt of Court Act (70 of 1971) S. 12 — Punishment — Imposition — Consideration — Behaviour of contemnor — Disobedience of Courts order is by positive or active contribution or passive and dormant conduct — Relevant consideration for imposition of punishment. (Paras12)

( D ) Contempt of Court Act (70 of 1971) S. 2 (b), 12 — Civil contempt — Implementation of scheme regulating issuance and fixation of High Security Number Plates and compliance with directions given by S. C. — Failure of State of Haryana for years together to comply with directions of Court and implement scheme — Attitude of State and its officers appearing to be lackadaisical and of wilful disregard — No explanation given for long delay — Secretary, Transport and Commissioner, State Transport Authority of State of Haryana held guilty of wilful disobedience/non-compliance of orders of Supreme Court — Fine of Rs. 2,000/- each imposed on both officers — Exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on State of Haryana — Costs imposed directed to be recovered from erring officers. (Paras1416)