1972 (9) TMI 142 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an administrative tribunal can ignore the law declared by the highest court in the State and initiate proceedings in direct violation of the law so declared? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Deliberate and malafide conduct of not following the binding precedent of the High Court is contumacious does not unduly enlarge the domain of contempt. It would not stifle a bonafide act of distinguishing the binding precedent even though it may take out to be mistaken. As a result of the foregoing discussion the High Court has rightly found the appellant guilty of contempt.

Summary

Issues:
1. Contempt of court for not following a previous decision of the High Court.
2. Interpretation of the statement "the matter can be safely deemed to be sub judice."
3. Applicability of the law of Contempt of Court in the given scenario.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the appellant, a member of the Superior Judicial Service, was found guilty of contempt of court by the High Court for not following a previous decision in a matter related to the appointment of a trustee for deities. The appellant's order, which stated that the matter was sub judice as it was before the Supreme Court, was deemed objectionable by the High Court. The High Court held that the appellant's conduct was deliberate and malafide, as he intentionally avoided following the High Court's decision by providing wrong and illegitimate reasons. The appellant's 23 years of judicial experience were considered, and it was concluded that he could not have genuinely believed that the decision lost its binding character once a petition for appeal was filed in the High Court. The High Court found the appellant's conduct to be contemptuous as it undermined the authority and respect of the court, creating confusion in the administration of law.

The High Court emphasized that under Art. 227 of the Constitution, it has the power of superintendence over courts and tribunals, making its decisions binding on quasi-judicial authorities like the appellant. The appellant's failure to adhere to the High Court's decision was seen as an act calculated to create confusion, undermine respect for the law, and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. The High Court's decision highlighted the importance of obedience to binding precedents set by superior courts to maintain the smooth working of the legal system and uphold the rule of law. The deliberate and malafide conduct of not following a binding precedent was considered contumacious and fell within the purview of the law of Contempt of Court.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, concurred with the High Court's findings, affirming that the appellant's conduct constituted contempt of court. The judgment underscored the significance of respecting and adhering to binding precedents set by superior courts to ensure the proper functioning of the legal system and uphold the authority of the judiciary. The decision served as a reminder of the importance of following established legal principles and precedents to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the judicial process.