Contempt of Court: Limits of High Court’s Jurisdiction Over Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vitusah Oberoi and Ors. v. Court of Its Own Motion, addressed a crucial question concerning the jurisdiction of High Courts in contempt proceedings, particularly in matters concerning the Supreme Court. The case stemmed from contempt proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against the editors and staff of Mid Day newspaper for publishing reports alleging misconduct by former Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by taking suo-motu cognizance of alleged contempt against the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The appellants in this case were associated with Mid Day, a widely circulated English daily newspaper. They included:

Appellant No.1 – Editor of Mid Day
Appellant No.2 – City Editor
Appellant No.3 – Printer and Publisher
Appellant No.4 – Cartoonist

The controversy arose from a series of reports published by Mid Day on May 2, 2007, and subsequent dates. These reports alleged that former Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal had misused his official position for personal gain, benefiting his sons’ business ventures. One report suggested that the official residence of Justice Sabharwal was used as the registered office for companies owned by his sons. Another report linked his judicial orders on commercial sealing in Delhi with business interests of his family.

High Court’s Contempt Proceedings

The Delhi High Court took suo-motu cognizance of these reports on May 21, 2007, after a practicing advocate, R.K. Anand, brought the matter before a Division Bench. The High Court issued contempt notices, observing that the articles and a cartoon published in Mid Day could lower the image of the judiciary and undermine public confidence in the courts. The High Court found the appellants guilty of contempt and directed them to appear for sentencing.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings for alleged contempt of the Supreme Court.
They cited Article 129 of the Constitution, which empowers only the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself.
The petitioners maintained that their reports were factual, based on documentary evidence, and did not intend to malign the judiciary.
They expressed regret if their reports had created an impression of disrespect toward the judiciary.

Arguments by the Respondents

The High Court held that the reports tarnished the judiciary’s image and warranted action to uphold its dignity.
It relied on its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, which grants High Courts the authority to punish for contempt of itself.
The High Court emphasized that the reports could undermine public trust in the judicial system.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court noted that Article 129 of the Constitution specifically empowers the Supreme Court to punish for its own contempt.
It emphasized that the power under Article 215, which grants High Courts the power to punish for contempt, does not extend to contempt of a superior court like the Supreme Court.
The Court clarified that contempt proceedings must be limited to the jurisdiction of the court initiating them, and the High Court had exceeded its authority.
It observed that if the Supreme Court itself did not find the publication contemptuous, a subordinate court could not assume jurisdiction to act on its behalf.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that the Delhi High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction and set aside the contempt order. The Court stated:

“The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 does not extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court. Such a power has never been recognized as an attribute of a court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts.”

It further emphasized:

“If the Supreme Court does not, despite the availability of the power vested in it, invoke the same to punish for its contempt, there is no question of a Court subordinate to the Supreme Court doing so.”

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant in reaffirming the hierarchical structure of the judiciary and the constitutional limits of contempt jurisdiction. It underscores:

That only the Supreme Court has the power to punish for its own contempt.
That High Courts cannot take cognizance of contempt against the Supreme Court under Article 215 or the Contempt of Courts Act.
The importance of maintaining press freedom while ensuring that the judiciary’s integrity remains protected.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case establishes a clear precedent that High Courts do not have the authority to initiate contempt proceedings for alleged contempt against the Supreme Court. It serves as an important reminder of the constitutional boundaries of judicial power and the necessity of maintaining press freedom while respecting judicial dignity.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vitusah Oberoi and O vs Court of Its Own Mot Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-01-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Judgment by T.S. Thakur
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Defamation Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Defamation Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Defamation Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Defamation Cases Category