Private Contempt Petition Without Advocate General's Consent Cannot Be Directly Registered; Can Be Treated As “Information” For Suo Motu Action: Karnataka High Court
The Court held that such a petition may nonetheless be treated as information under Rule 7 of the State Rules and placed before the Chief Justice for suo motu cognizance.
The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that when a private party initiates criminal contempt proceedings without the prior written consent of the Advocate General, the petition cannot be entertained as a motion under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the issuance of notice to accused persons in the absence of compliance with the statutory mandate is unsustainable in law.
The Court further held, however, that such a petition is not to be dismissed outright. The material placed before the Court may constitute information within the meaning of Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, on the basis of which the Court may, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, take suo motu cognizance. Provided the petition is first placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for necessary orders, rather than being numbered and listed directly on the judicial side.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed, “…the complainant has not approached the Advocate General on the premise that his advice is not at all necessary and it is not open to him to seek such consent, Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is quite clear that the written consent of the Advocate General as have been specifically authorised by the section, would be taken note of for entertaining a petition under the said section. But this does not, in any manner, deprive the complainant of his remedy as he can come before the Court, as indeed he has done, requesting the Court to take suo motu action. However, the procedure as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.N. Duda (supra) has to be followed as there cannot be a numbering of the information given before this Court as a Contempt of Court Case (Criminal) and the issuance of notice to the accused without following such procedure”.
Advocate Angad Kamath appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Kavitha Damodaran appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. filed an original suit for perpetual injunction against Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, alleging misuse of confidential proprietary information.
The trial court, by order dated November 29, 2024, declined to pass an ex parte order appointing a Court Commissioner. The complainant challenged this in writ petition, whereupon the Court, on December 06, 2024, appointed a Court Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations between December 20 and 28 2024.
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 declined to comply with the warrant, effectively preventing the Commissioner's team from entering the premises. The Commissioner submitted a formal report dated June 01, 2025, which was placed before this Court. By an order dated January 29, 2025, the writ petition was disposed of directing the trial court to pass appropriate orders on the Commissioner's report.
The complainant thereafter filed Criminal Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 2(c), 10, 12, and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings and punishment of the four accused. The Registry raised an objection regarding maintainability on account of the absence of Advocate General's consent. By order dated 24 February 2026, this Court overruled the office objection and directed issuance of notice. The accused thereafter filed I.A. No. 1 of 2026 seeking recall of the order dated 24 February 2026.
The Court held that Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prescribes three modes of initiating criminal contempt: by the Court suo motu, by the Advocate General, or by any other person with the Advocate General's written consent. These are not interchangeable. The consent requirement is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive safeguard designed to screen frivolous petitions and protect the Court's time.
Relying on P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and others, (1988) 3 SCC 167, and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254, the Court observed that where a private party files a petition without the Advocate General's consent, such a petition cannot be styled as a contempt case and listed for admission on the judicial side.
“This case, at the outset, points out that the complainant has filed the complaint under Section of 15 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 3 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court proceedings) Rules, 1981, which should not be justified as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side. Such a petition should be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders and the Hon'ble Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation with the other Hon'ble Judges of this Court, whether to take any cognizance of the information. Accordingly, the Office has raised the objections for noncompliance of these legal aspects. Whereas in this case, the said statutory requirements have not been complied with”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the IA was allowed, and the order dated February 24, 2026 overruling the office objections was recalled. The Registry was directed to treat the petition as "information" under Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, and to place the same before the Chief Justice for necessary orders. The criminal contempt petition was closed for statistical purposes.
Cause Title: New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhat Sharma & Ors. CRL.CCC No. 5 of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: Angad Kamath, Advocate.
Respondent: Kavitha Damodaran, Rahul Kris, Advocate.