1978 (3) TMI 217 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appealability of an order initiating contempt proceedings under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the appeal filed by an alleged contemner under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing the issuance of a notice to show cause for contempt. The central issue raised was the appealability of an order initiating contempt proceedings. The appellant argued that an appeal lies as a matter of right to the Supreme Court under Section 19, while the respondents contended otherwise.

The Supreme Court, comprising N.L. Untwalia and P.N. Shinghal, JJ, examined the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act and concluded that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents was well-founded. The Court emphasized that an appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of right is only permissible from an order or decision of a bench of the High Court if it pertains to the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Court clarified that the mere initiation of contempt proceedings by the issuance of a notice does not decide any substantive issue affecting the rights of the parties involved.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that Section 20 of the Act imposes a limitation on the initiation of contempt proceedings, stating that no court shall commence such proceedings after one year from the alleged contempt. The Court acknowledged that while an appeal may be allowed under Article 136 of the Constitution for certain orders, the present appeal under Section 19(1) was deemed incompetent as it did not involve a decision on the merits of the contempt allegations.

In support of its decision, the Court referenced the case law, including Baradakanta Mishra v. Orissa High Court, to reinforce the principle that appeals under Section 19 do not extend to orders merely initiating contempt proceedings. The judgment underscored that for an order to be appealable under Section 19, it must conclusively decide a substantive issue raised by the alleged contemner, impacting their rights. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming that an order initiating contempt proceedings without further substantive decisions is not subject to appeal under Section 19 of the Act.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the appealability of orders initiating contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, emphasizing the necessity for a substantive decision affecting the rights of the parties for an appeal to be maintainable under Section 19.