Contempt Jurisdiction Is An Independent Jurisdiction: Kerala HC Issues Directions On Placement Of Contempt Petitions
The Kerala High Court reiterated that Contempt of Court pertains to the institution and not to a specific Judge or Bench.
The Kerala High Court has issued directions on the placement of Contempt Petitions before the Court/Roster while clarifying that Contempt jurisdiction is an independent jurisdiction.
The Court reiterated that the alleged Civil Contempt of Court pertains to the institution of the High Court and not to a specific Judge or Bench. The Court held that contempt petitions need not be placed before the same Judge or Bench that passed the original Order.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu held, “Thus, the position of law pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the contempt alleged is the contempt of the High Court as such and not necessarily the contempt of only a particular Bench or Judge who might have passed the order concerned in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court as such. The cases may be pending or might have been disposed of. Civil contempt might be alleged in connection with interim orders in pending matters and can also be alleged in connection with final orders in matters that have already been disposed of.”
Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup and Senior Government Pleader V Manu appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The matter was placed before the Court as a suo motu Petition by the Registry under the roster assignment of "suo motu matters in judicial practice and procedure." The issue arose following the Division Bench Order in a Contempt Case which highlighted delays in listing contempt petitions, restoration petitions, and time extension petitions when the Judge who passed the Order retired or was assigned to a different Bench.
The Registry submitted that the current practice of placing contempt petitions before the same Bench or Judge who issued the original Order caused delays and affected the regular functioning of the Court. The Registry sought clarity on whether such a practice was required under any rule or legal provision.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar v. Raj Kishore (1997) wherein it was held, “The contempt alleged is the contempt of the High Court as such and not necessarily the contempt of only a particular Judge who might have passed the order concerned in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court as such…The civil contempt alleged is the contempt of the High Court as such and not the contempt of the author of the order being the Judge concerned who might have passed the said order, whether interim or final. When civil contempt by way of breach of such an order is alleged it is the institution of the High Court as such which is said to have been contemptuously dealt with by the contemnor concerned.”
The Bench held, “It was emphasized that while exercising Contempt jurisdiction in connection with civil contempt of its orders, the High Court is not exercising any review jurisdiction where, statutorily, the proceedings may have to be placed for the decision of the same judge or judges if they are available. Contempt jurisdiction is an independent jurisdiction. The placement of the Contempt Petition is a part of the fixation of the Roster.”
Consequently, the Court stated that “the present practice which as pointed out by the Registry causes unnecessary delay and inconvenience, is not only not traceable to any Rule but, in fact, is contrary to the above legal position.”
“The placement of the Civil Contempt Petition can be as per the administrative order issued to fix the Roster. The Civil Contempt Petitions containing allegations of breach or defiance of a judgment or order of the High Court can be taken up by the concerned Division Bench or single Judge before whom the main matter is pending as per Roster or before whom the main matter would lie as per the Roster if it were pending. As pointed out by the Registry, it will aid speedy disposal of the civil contempt cases,” the Bench ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court closed the suo motu proceedings.
Cause Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:9975)