Contempt Proceedings Are In Personam, Authorities Or Body Corporate Cannot Be Prosecuted Under The Act: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a contempt petition preferred against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) through its Chairman, observing that a contempt proceeding is a proceeding in personam and the authority/body corporate cannot be prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971.

The Court opined that once the officers who were alleged to be responsible for the compliance of the order of the Court have been impleaded in their individual capacity, the NHAI, being a statutory authority and a juristic entity, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the contempt proceedings.

The Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, "The persons holding the posts, who are alleged to be failed to comply with the order, have already been impleaded as a party respondent to the present contempt proceeding. The command to the authority/body corporate cannot be made in a contempt proceeding, as the contempt proceeding is by its nature, a proceeding in personam and the authority/body corporate cannot be prosecuted under the Act of 1971. Thus, in view of the well settled provisions of law as stated above, the NHAI, is not a necessary party in the instant petition."

Advocate BP Sharma appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Sakshi Bajpai appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The petitioner filed a contempt petition before the High Court alleging non-compliance with a previous direction issued by the Court in a writ petition. In the said writ petition, the Court had directed the respondent, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), to redress the grievances projected by the petitioner within a specified timeframe. While instituting the instant contempt proceedings, the petitioner impleaded the NHAI "through its Chairman" as respondent number one.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner contended that the contempt petition was maintainable against the statutory authority. It was argued that since the original direction was issued to the NHAI, the authority itself was the contemnor. It further placed reliance on Section 12(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with the Explanation appended thereto, to submit that a body corporate or an authority fell within the definition of a "company" and was therefore a necessary party liable to be proceeded against under the Act.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that a proceeding in contempt is by its very nature a proceeding in personam (against a specific person) and cannot be allowed to acquire the character of a representative proceeding.

The Court noted that the word "person" in the context of initiating contempt refers to a human being or a natural person, and not a juristic entity. It held that a command issued to a corporation, State, or statutory authority is actually a command directed to those individual officers who are officially responsible for managing its affairs.

The Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal in nature, carrying serious civil consequences. Therefore, identifying and impleading the specific officer responsible for implementing the order is not a mere technical formality. It must be established that the concerned individual officer was in charge of the subject matter and guilty of deliberate omission or neglect.

The Court clarified that the principles contained in Article 300 of the Constitution of India, which govern civil suits filed by or against the State or Union of India, cannot be extended to contempt proceedings.

Rejecting the petitioner's argument regarding Section 12(5) of the Act, the Court held that while the section mentions companies and bodies corporate, the ultimate liability and punishment of detention in civil prison can only be enforced against the individual directors, managers, or officers with whose consent, connivance, or neglect the contempt was committed.

"In view of the discussion made herein-above and the settled position of law that contempt proceedings are proceedings in personam, as such this Court is of the considered opinion that once the officers who are alleged to be responsible for the compliance of the order of the Court have been impleaded in their individual capacity, the NHAI, being a statutory authority and a juristic entity, is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the contempt proceedings", the Court held.

Consequently, the Court held that the NHAI, being a statutory authority and a juristic entity, could not be prosecuted under the Act and was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

The contempt petition against the authority was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed, while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition by arraying the specific officers in their individual capacity.

Cause Title: Arvind Kumar Goyal v. National Highways Authority Of India and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:CGHC:24841]

Appearances: 

Petitioner: Advocates BP Sharma and ML Saket

Respondents: Advocate Sakshi Bajpai

Click here to read/download the Order