Contempt Case in Kamakhya Temple Dispute: Supreme Court Declines Action Against Respondents

The Supreme Court recently ruled in the contempt case of The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya vs. Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors., which revolved around allegations of non-compliance with its earlier judgment regarding the management and financial affairs of the historic Kamakhya Temple. The Court examined whether the respondents had committed contempt by failing to hand over temple properties and funds, as directed in its judgment dated July 7, 2015. Ultimately, the Court declined to take contempt action but left open the option for the petitioner to seek financial recovery through appropriate legal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The Kamakhya Temple, a renowned Hindu shrine in Assam, has been at the center of a long-standing dispute between the Bordeuri Samaj, the temple’s traditional managers, and the Kamakhya Debutter Board, a self-constituted body that sought control over temple administration and finances.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bordeuri Samaj, recognizing its historical rights over the temple’s management. The Court directed the Debutter Board to vacate the premises, return control to the last elected Dolois (head priests), and hand over temple properties. However, the Bordeuri Samaj later filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with these directions.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Bordeuri Samaj alleged that the respondents had:

Failed to vacate certain premises belonging to the temple.
Not handed over movable temple properties listed in a representation dated August 3, 2015.
Withheld surplus funds, allegedly Rs. 11 crores, belonging to the temple.
Refused to submit financial records and books of accounts.

They argued that these actions violated the Supreme Court’s 2015 order, thereby constituting contempt of court.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including the Kamakhya Debutter Board, countered that:

The properties directed to be handed over had already been transferred to the Bordeuri Samaj.
The financial dispute was not explicitly addressed in the 2015 judgment.
The Supreme Court had never ordered a specific financial transfer, making the contempt allegations legally unsustainable.
The claims of missing funds were based on an inquiry report, not a judicial determination.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court carefully considered the allegations and arguments, ultimately deciding that the contempt petition was not maintainable. The Court’s key observations included:

1. No Clear Direction to Return Funds

The Court noted that while its 2015 ruling mandated the handover of temple properties, it did not explicitly order the transfer of Rs. 11 crores or any specific financial amount. It stated:

“There is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by the respondents to the petitioner.”

Thus, the financial dispute could not be enforced through contempt proceedings.

2. Reliance on Inquiry Report Cannot Justify Contempt

The petitioners based their allegations on an inquiry report by the Assam CID, which claimed that Rs. 7.62 crores had been misappropriated. However, the Court ruled that an inquiry report does not constitute a judicial determination. It stated:

“Observations in the report cannot be treated as concluded findings.”

Since the respondents were not given an opportunity to challenge the report’s findings, using it as a basis for contempt proceedings was unfair.

3. Financial Recovery Must Be Pursued Separately

The Court advised the petitioners to initiate civil or criminal proceedings if they sought financial recovery:

“It is always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of money in accordance with law.”

Thus, the petitioners were directed to explore legal options such as a civil lawsuit rather than contempt proceedings.

4. Contempt Jurisdiction is Discretionary

The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously, stating:

“The power to punish for contempt must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.”

Since no direct violation of court orders was established, the Court declined to invoke contempt powers.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

The contempt petition was disposed of, with no action taken against the respondents.
The petitioners were free to pursue financial recovery through appropriate legal proceedings.
The Court made no determination on whether misappropriation had occurred, leaving that to be addressed in future legal actions.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has several important implications:

Reinforcement of Due Process: The judgment clarifies that contempt cannot be used as a substitute for civil litigation.
Financial Accountability in Religious Institutions: The ruling highlights the need for transparency in temple administration.
Limitations of Inquiry Reports: The judgment reaffirms that administrative reports cannot replace judicial findings.
Preservation of Temple Autonomy: The decision upholds the rights of the Bordeuri Samaj while ensuring due process.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of judicial restraint in contempt cases while affirming the petitioners’ right to seek financial recovery through proper legal channels.

Petitioner Name: The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya.
Respondent Name: Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Guwahati, Assam.
Judgment Date: 15-12-2021.

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

Download Judgment: the-bordeuri-samaj-o-vs-riju-prasad-sarma-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

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