9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the single Judge to pass an order under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 2. Validity of the special appeal against the interim order. 3. Proper procedure for exercising contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Single Judge to Pass an Order under Article 215 of the Constitution of India: The appellants contended that the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, as the determination regarding matters relating to contempt had not been assigned to him by the Chief Justice. The power to punish for contempt lies with the entire High Court, comprising the Chief Justice and other Judges, and this power must be exercised in accordance with the determination made by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice has the prerogative to allocate judicial business, and no Judge can assume jurisdiction in a case unless assigned by the Chief Justice. This principle is supported by several precedents, including the cases of State v. Devi Dayal AIR1959All421 and State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and others 1998CriLJ2012. The Division Bench concluded that the single Judge's order was without jurisdiction and void. 2. Validity of the Special Appeal Against the Interim Order: The respondents argued that the special appeal was not maintainable as it was against an interim order. However, the Division Bench held that the order concerning the jurisdiction to entertain the contempt proceeding clearly falls within the definition of 'judgment' under Clause 10 of the letters patent and is accordingly appealable. The order affected the rights of the appellants and had the traits and trappings of finality. The Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another [1982]1SCR187 provided a detailed analysis of what constitutes a 'judgment' for the purposes of appeal. The Division Bench concluded that the special appeal was maintainable. 3. Proper Procedure for Exercising Contempt Jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India: The respondents argued that the jurisdiction of the High Court to initiate proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by any statutory provision or rules, including the Allahabad High Court Rules. The Division Bench agreed that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in the High Court as a Court of record. However, such power must be exercised following the procedure prescribed by law. The Chief Justice has the authority to allocate work, including contempt matters, to specific Judges. The Division Bench referred to the case of Dr. L. P. Misra v. State of U.P. 1998CriLJ4603, where the Supreme Court emphasized that jurisdiction under Article 215 must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Division Bench concluded that the single Judge's order was void as it was not within his assigned jurisdiction. Conclusion: The special appeal was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside. The matter was directed to be listed before the learned single Judge having determination to hear contempt matters within a week from the date of the judgment. The Division Bench clarified that they had not decided the issue of whether the appellants had violated the order passed by the Court, and this order would not preclude the Court having determination to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
|
