Essential To Preserve Judicial Independence: Kerala High Court On Inapplicability Of Section 16 Contempt Of Courts Act To Judges of Superior Courts
The High Court held that Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not apply to judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts, given the constitutional scheme that guarantees the immunity and independence of the superior judiciary.
The Kerala High Court has held that the non-application of Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is essential to preserve the independence of the superior judiciary, and that the provision is confined in its operation to judges of subordinate courts.
The Court held that the expression “Judge” occurring in Section 16 cannot be read in isolation and must be interpreted in consonance with the constitutional scheme, which accords a distinct status and immunity to judges of the superior courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions independently and without fear.
The Court was hearing a constitutional challenge to several provisions of the Act, and seeking a declaration that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are also liable to be proceeded against for contempt of their own courts.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, while addressing this specific contention, referred to the decision of a special Bench of the Patna High Court in Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Others v. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, and observed: “…in respect of Supreme Court or High Court, there is no question of any judge being liable for contempt of his own court, that is, the courtroom in which such judge is presiding, and only a judge of subordinate court can be said to have committed contempt of his own court, that is, the court in which such judge is presiding.”
The Bench explained, “That is so because, in order to maintain the independence of the high judiciary, they are kept immune from criticism in respect of their conduct even in the Parliament and Legislature of the State under Articles 131 and 211 of the Constitution of India and a special procedure is prescribed for their removal under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b)”.
Background
The petitioner contended that Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, makes no express distinction between judges of subordinate courts and judges of superior courts; therefore, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts could also be held liable for contempt of their own courts. It was argued that the use of the general expression “Judge” necessarily included judges of superior courts.
The Union of India opposed the contention and submitted that Section 16 does not apply to judges of superior courts, and that the provision must be interpreted in light of settled judicial precedent and the constitutional framework governing the independence and immunity of the higher judiciary.
Court’s Observation
The High Court held that Section 16 cannot be read in isolation and must be interpreted in the context of the constitutional scheme, which accords a special status and immunity to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court observed that the Constitution itself recognises the distinct position of the superior judiciary and provides extensive safeguards to ensure their independence.
The Bench placed reliance on the judgment of the Special Bench of the Patna High Court in Shri Harish Chandra Mishra and Others v. The Hon’ble Mr Justice S. Ali Ahmed, which examined whether Section 16 of the Act of 1971 could be made applicable to judges of superior courts. The Special Bench had held that in the case of the Supreme Court and High Courts, there is no question of a judge being liable for contempt of his own court, and that only a judge of a subordinate court can be said to commit contempt of his own court, namely, the court over which he presides.
The Kerala High Court agreed with the reasoning of the Special Bench and held that had Parliament intended Section 16 to apply to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, it would have expressly stated so. The Court noted that judges of the superior courts are granted constitutional immunity even from discussion of their conduct in Parliament and State Legislatures under Articles 121 and 211 of the Constitution of India, and that a special procedure for their removal is prescribed under Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b).
The Bench observed that “having provided such a high degree of immunity and protection to judges of the superior courts under the Constitution, it cannot simpliciter be presumed that by merely using the expression 'Judge' in Section 16, it was intended to include even the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as par with other judges and magistrates, so that they may be answerable in that very Court in respect of their conduct while discharging judicial duties”.
The Court further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Others, wherein it was expressly held that Section 16(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not apply to judges of courts of record and is confined to the subordinate judiciary. The Apex Court had emphasised that “it is essential to provide for all immunities necessary to enable Judges to act fearlessly and impartially in the discharge of their judicial duties”.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court held that Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, does not apply to judges of the Supreme Court or the High Courts, and that only judges of subordinate courts can be proceeded against for contempt of their own courts under the said provision.
Finding no merit in the petitioner’s contention, the Court rejected the challenge and dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:97826)
Appearances
Petitioner: Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate (Party-in-Person)
Respondents: S. Biju, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, Dr K. P. Pradeep, Advocate
Vinitha B., Senior Government Pleader, Rajit, Standing Counsel
