Review: SC Rules Acts That Mislead, Obstruct, or Undermine Court Decisions Amount to Contempt.
In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgements on Contempt of Court; misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and commuting of the death penalty in cases of inordinate delay, Kerala High Court’s judgement on clothing as a form of self-expression and Calcutta High Court’s judgement on regularization of casual workers.
Supreme Court: Acts that mislead, obstruct, or undermine Court Decisions amount to Contempt.
In Celir LLP vs. Ms Sumati Prasad Bafna and others, the Supreme Court held that any act of defiance, disobedience, or an attempt to tarnish the court’s authority constitutes contempt, as it erodes public trust and respect for judicial institutions.
The two-judge bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the judgement of the Apex Court that set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgement that allowed the borrower (Sumati Prasad Bafna) to redeem the mortgage.
The case arose from disputes surrounding the enforcement of a secured debt under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Union Bank of India, as the secured creditor, declared the borrower, Mr Sumati Prasad Bafna, in default and initiated recovery proceedings, including auctioning the secured property. Celir LLP, the highest bidder in the auction, was confirmed as the purchaser. However, disputes escalated when the borrower sought to redeem the mortgage, citing procedural violations in the auction process, including inadequate notice under SARFAESI rules. Despite the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment upholding the auction sale and dismissing the borrower’s redemption claims, the borrower and a subsequent transferee, who purchased the property in a transaction initiated during the appeal process, delayed compliance. Celir LLP filed contempt petitions, arguing that the respondents deliberately frustrated the implementation of the court’s order by filing new suits, refusing to hand over possession of the property, and creating subsequent transactions. The respondents contended that the auction sale was invalid due to alleged statutory non-compliance and argued that their actions were lawful under the High Court’s judgment and in the absence of a stay during the pendency of appeals.
The Apex Court, reiterating its previous rulings, emphasized that the borrower’s redemption rights were extinguished once the auction sale was completed and held that the respondents’ actions undermined the court’s authority.
Observing that the borrower and transferee had abused judicial processes, the Apex Court held that it is axiomatic that a party should obey both the letter and the spirit of a court order, and it is neither open for the parties to adopt a myopic and blinkered view of such decision nor any such interpretation or view that sub-serves their own interests. Accordingly, the court upheld the validity of the auction and directed compliance with its earlier judgment, including handing over possession to Celir LLP.
Supreme Court: Growing tendency to misuse Section 498A, if left unscrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes.
The Apex Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs. State of Telangana & Another, held that there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. If not scrutinized, this will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for the use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
The two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal against the judgement of the Telangana High Court that refused to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The marriage of the Husband and the wife was solemnized on 08 March 2015 and had their first child in the year 2016 and the second child in the year 2017. It is alleged that at the time of her marriage, the father of the wife gave net cash of Rs.10 lakhs, 10 tolas of gold, and other household articles as dowry and also spent Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage expenses.
Further, post-marriage, it is alleged that the husband started harassing her both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. It is alleged that the family of the husband (Appellants in this case), including his parents and his brother (accused No.7 as per FIR) and 3 sisters used to instigate the husband for demanding more dowry from her. The family approached the Telangana High Court seeking to quash the FIR, which was refused by the High Court. While disposing of the petition, the High Court directed the Investigating Officer to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of CrPC and also the guidelines issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014). The High Court further granted protection by directing the Investigation Officer not to arrest to family until the chargesheet is filed and stated that custodial interrogation of the accused is not required. The current appeal is against this judgment. Considering the arguments from both parties, the Apex Court remarked that the only question for consideration was whether the FIR should be quashed.
The Apex Court, after referring to the material facts and circumstances of the case, remarked that the allegations of harassment are vague and omnibus. No specific details of harassment are provided by the wife. Further, the court opined that the current FIR is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores and not a genuine one.
The Apex Court further cautioned against the tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord. It is stated that Section 498A was included to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, there is a growing tendency to misuse.
Accordingly, the Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court: An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence.
The Apex Court, in State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade and Anr. with connected case, held that an inordinate delay in the execution of the death sentence has a dehumanising effect on the accused and it mandates the commutation of the death sentence.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih deliberated on appeals regarding the impact of delays in executing death sentences. The case involved two convicts who raped and murdered the victim in 2007. In 2012, the Sessions Court in Pune convicted them and imposed the death penalty, which the Bombay High Court later upheld, classifying the crime as the “rarest of the rare.” The Supreme Court also confirmed the death sentence in 2015. Mercy petitions filed the same year before the Governor were rejected in 2016, and subsequent petitions to the President were rejected in 2017. Execution warrants were eventually issued in 2019, following which the convicts filed writ petitions challenging the warrants, citing inordinate and unexplained delays.
The High Court found that the delays were undue and avoidable, further noting that the convicts had been kept in solitary confinement since March 2012. Consequently, it commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment for a fixed term of 35 years. Referring to previous rulings, the Supreme Court observed that no rigid timeframe can define what constitutes “undue” or “inordinate” delay, as these terms must be evaluated contextually, considering the human impact of such delays. The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, extends beyond the pronouncement of a death sentence to its execution. It held that prolonged and unexplained delays, particularly those outside the prisoners’ control, dehumanize the accused and warrant the commutation of the death sentence.
The court further issued directions to all the State Governments and Union Territories regarding the mercy petitions and the appeals in cases of the death penalty. Accordingly, the High Court judgement is upheld.
Kerala High Court: Clothing is a form of self-expression, and it is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilized society to judge a woman solely based on her dress.
In xxx vs. xxx, the Kerala High Court held that clothing is a form of self-expression being part of an individual’s identity, and the sartorial preferences that a women makes, is that of her own choice, which cannot be subjected to moral policing or assessment.
The division bench comprising of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was hearing appeal against the order of the Family Court that rejected the custody of the children to the mother. The Family Court denied custody to the mother, claiming she was dressed “revealingly” in the photos and labelling her as a person of loose morals. The wife approached the High Court against this order.
The wife had testified that she had been locked up and subjected to cruelty by her husband for over nine months. She admitted to considering hiring someone to hack into her husband’s computer out of desperation but clarified that the plan was never executed.
Further, looking at the facts and materials of the case, the High Court examined a WhatsApp screenshot where the mother referred to the father as a “dog” and demanded a divorce. It observed that this language might have been used in frustration, as she was struggling to obtain a divorce. The court rejected the Family Court’s conclusion that she was habitually abusive. The High Court also dismissed the notion that the mother celebrating her divorce with friends reflected poorly on her character, stating that expecting women to feel subdued or servile after a divorce is a misogynistic stereotype.
The High Court, after interacting with the children, noted their preferences, that they permanently want to be with their mother, but do not mind visiting or meeting their father at any time on any day.
The High Court also stated unequivocally that courts must avoid even borderline misogyny or sexism, and it annulled all adverse findings against the mother. Accordingly, the High Court awarded permanent custody of the children to the mother and denounced the Family Court’s order as perpetuating gender stereotypes, patriarchy, and casual sexism.
Calcutta High Court: Casual workers not appointed against sanctioned post are not entitled to regularization.
In Kartick Chandra Barik vs. State of West Bengal & Others, the Calcutta High Court held that casual workers who are not appointed against the sanctioned posts are not entitled to be absorbed into regular service.
The division bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak & Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi was hearing an appeal against the judgement that dismissed the appellant’s claim for regularization. The case pertains to a writ petition filed by a driver appointed temporarily by the Baidyabati Municipality on 01 November 1988. Initially, his pay was fixed on a regular scale, and he received salaries, including increments and allowances, until March 2010, when these payments were abruptly stopped. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the municipality, but no action was taken. Subsequently, he filed W.P. No. 13380 (W) of 2014 before the High Court, which directed the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, to consider his representation and issue a reasoned order.
In compliance, the Director issued an order dated 8 September 2014, denying the petitioner’s claim for regularization, citing his status as a casual worker whose appointment was neither against a sanctioned post nor approved by the State Government. The petitioner challenged this order.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that his regular pay scale since 1988 indicated his entitlement to regularization. He also highlighted precedents where casual workers appointed before 1992 under the municipality had been regularized. However, the High Court upheld the findings of the Director of Local Bodies, noting that the petitioner’s appointment was unsanctioned, lacked adherence to recruitment formalities, and did not receive prior government approval. Although the petitioner had been granted a regular pay scale and benefits until 2010, these were later discontinued due to audit objections.
The High Court, relying on past judgements, observed that the petitioner’s appointment was purely casual, governed by a “no work, no pay” arrangement. His benefits and increments, though extended temporarily, did not establish entitlement to regularization. Given the absence of a sanctioned post and proper recruitment procedures, the High Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim for regularization was untenable and dismissed the petition.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.