Contempt Conviction Overturned: Supreme Court Rules on Violation of Natural Justice

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 1, 2018, ruled on a contempt of court case, overturning the conviction of an appellant who was found guilty by the Delhi High Court. The case, Kuldeep Mansukhani vs. Court on Its Own Motion, revolved around an alleged contempt charge stemming from a reference made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not followed proper procedures and had violated the principles of natural justice by convicting the appellant without conducting an inquiry.

The judgment highlights the fundamental principle that contempt proceedings must adhere to due process and cannot be based solely on a reference from a lower court without proper inquiry.

Background of the Case

The contempt case arose from a reference made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, which was forwarded to the Delhi High Court by the District and Sessions Judge. However, the Supreme Court noted that no inquiry had been conducted at either stage before the High Court took cognizance of the matter.

The High Court, upon receiving the reference, asked the appellant whether he wished to submit anything in writing. In response, the appellant filed a detailed affidavit explaining his position and tendered an unconditional apology. Despite this, the High Court proceeded with the conviction and imposed a sentence on the appellant.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, Kuldeep Mansukhani, argued that:

• The High Court had not conducted a proper inquiry before convicting him.
• The reference from the Metropolitan Magistrate was not supported by an investigation or hearing at the lower court level.
• The principles of natural justice required that he be given a full opportunity to defend himself before being held in contempt.
• He had submitted an unconditional apology, which should have been considered by the High Court before pronouncing the judgment.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Delhi High Court, acting on its own motion, argued that:

• The reference from the District Judge was sufficient for the contempt proceedings.
• The appellant had been given an opportunity to file an affidavit, and his response was duly considered.
• Contempt of court is a serious offense that must be dealt with firmly to maintain the dignity of the judiciary.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found significant procedural lapses in the High Court’s handling of the contempt proceedings. The Court held:

“No inquiry whatsoever has been conducted either at the time of making of a report to the District Judge or at the time of the District Judge forwarding the reference to the High Court.”

The Court emphasized the necessity of due process in contempt cases and stated:

“Having regard to the defense taken by the appellant, the High Court ought to have conducted an inquiry. That having not been done and the punishment having been imposed solely on the basis of the reference made by the District Judge and the affidavit in response, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with fully.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant’s unconditional apology, noting that:

“The apology tendered by the appellant is taken on record, and we set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were set aside.
• The appellant’s unconditional apology was accepted as a mitigating factor.
• The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
• The amicus curiae’s fee was directed to be paid as per court rules.

Conclusion

The ruling in Kuldeep Mansukhani vs. Court on Its Own Motion reinforces the principle that contempt proceedings must adhere to strict legal procedures and respect the accused’s right to a fair hearing. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of conducting proper inquiries before convicting individuals for contempt and ensures that judicial power is exercised with due regard for fundamental rights.

Petitioner Name: Kuldeep Mansukhani.
Respondent Name: Court on Its Own Motion, High Court of Delhi.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi, India.
Judgment Date: 01-08-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Kuldeep Mansukhani vs Court on Its Own Mot Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

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