2010 (2) TMI 1261 - SC - Indian Laws

Order of the HC passed in Criminal Contempt - High Court power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu for ensuring the compliance of the orders passed by the Court - convicting the appellants for not complying with the directions issued by this Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal 1996 (12) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT and sentencing them for six months' imprisonment and also imposing a fine - HELD THAT - In the instant cases, the record reveals that the Habeas Corpus petition was taken by the High Court on 30.07.1997 and directed the District Judge to hold the inquiry on the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition. The District Judge submitted the report on 03.12.1997. The Court considered the case on 4.12.1997 and initiated contempt proceedings against appellants and others suo motu. Matter was remanded to the District Judge for further inquiry in view of the fact that Sujan Singh was not heard in the earlier inquiry. The District Judge submitted the supplementary inquiry report on 12.07.1998. After hearing the parties the judgment was reserved on 12.03.1999. Thereafter, it was listed on 14.12.2001 i.e. after 2 years and 9 months for fresh arguments. However, the counsel for the parties stated that nothing more was required to be submitted except what had been argued earlier. The judgment was pronounced on 20.12.2001. It is apparent from the order sheets itself that the matter remained pending before the Court, so far as the contempt proceedings are concerned, for more than three years which itself is in contravention of the true spirit of the purpose of initiation of the contempt proceedings. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that contempt proceedings had been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952. The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them. The relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them. The notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totally mis-leading. The facts and circumstances of the case warrant reversal of the aforesaid judgment and order. This Court, while entertaining these appeals, granted interim relief to the appellants. Thus, State could not initiate disciplinary proceedings against either of them. The appeals stand allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Contempt is hereby set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with directions in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal.
2. Validity of contempt proceedings and adherence to procedural rules.
3. Presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Standard of proof and procedural fairness in contempt proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Directions in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal:
The appellants were convicted by the Allahabad High Court for not complying with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, which included guidelines for arrest and detention procedures. The High Court found that the police officials had detained Tej Veer Singh without following these guidelines, leading to their conviction for criminal contempt.

2. Validity of Contempt Proceedings and Adherence to Procedural Rules:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the contempt proceedings initiated by the Allahabad High Court. It was noted that the High Court did not follow the mandatory procedural rules outlined in Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Specifically, the appellants were not provided with a clear statement of charges, nor were they given relevant documents, violating the principles of natural justice. The notices issued were incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading, failing to inform the appellants of the specific allegations against them.

3. Presumption of Death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The High Court presumed Tej Veer Singh to be dead based on the District Judge's report, despite only four years having elapsed since his disappearance. The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for a presumption of death only after a person has not been heard from for seven years. Therefore, the High Court's presumption was premature and not legally justified.

4. Standard of Proof and Procedural Fairness in Contempt Proceedings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring the same standard of proof as in criminal cases. The alleged contemnors must be informed of the specific charges and given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court cited several precedents, including B.K. Kar Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High Court & Anr., and Debabrata Bandopadhyay & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., underscoring the need for clear evidence and adherence to procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court concluded that the contempt proceedings against the appellants were flawed due to non-compliance with procedural rules and principles of natural justice. The judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 20.12.2001 were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.