1961 (3) TMI 115 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether it is necessary to make the Chief Justice and Judges of a High Court parties in an appeal against a decision of contempt of court.
2. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate intentionally disobeyed the order of the High Court.
3. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's refusal to act on a telegram amounted to contempt of court.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of whether it is necessary to make the Chief Justice and Judges of a High Court parties in an appeal against a decision of contempt of court. The court notes that while persons who claim relief or against whom relief has been given must be made parties in suits or appeals, Judges of a High Court trying a person for contempt merely decide a matter and do not have a personal interest in the outcome. The court concludes that making Judges parties in contempt matters is unnecessary and inappropriate, and the practice should be discontinued, aligning with the practice in England. The judgment emphasizes that in contempt matters, there is no relief claimed against the Chief Justice and Judges, and the title of such proceedings should be "in re (the alleged contemner)."

2. The judgment delves into whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate intentionally disobeyed the order of the High Court. It narrates a sequence of events where the Magistrate passed an order for restitution despite a stay granted by the High Court. The Magistrate defended his actions, stating that the complainant's application for a stay lacked necessary documentation and that he acted in good faith. The High Court found the Magistrate guilty of contempt, emphasizing that intentional disobedience of a superior court's order must be established. The judgment highlights that disobedience must be deliberate, with knowledge of the order, obtained from an authorized or authentic source. In this case, due to lack of clarity on the application's authenticity and the absence of accompanying affidavits, the Magistrate's refusal to act on the telegram was deemed not contemptuous. The court ultimately set aside the conviction and fine imposed on the Magistrate.

3. The judgment further explores whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's refusal to act on a telegram amounted to contempt of court. It notes that the telegram lacked authenticity and proper authorization, as it was not accompanied by an affidavit and the sender's capacity was unclear. The court concludes that the Magistrate was entitled to ignore the telegram as there was no guarantee of the information's truth. The judgment highlights that the subsequent stay of proceedings and the non-issuance of a writ for redelivery of possession indicated no intentional disobedience by the Magistrate or the second officer. Consequently, the court held that the Magistrate's refusal to act on the telegram did not amount to contempt of court, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and fine imposed on the Magistrate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and fine imposed on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for contempt of court, based on the lack of intentional disobedience and the absence of authentic information prompting the Magistrate's actions.