No. If a contempt petition filed by petitioner is rejected by the court, the petitioner has no right to appeal against rejection of this contempt petition. However, he may file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court if such order of rejection was filed by the high court.
It is noteworthy that Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides a right to appeal against an order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. However, the Supreme Court has held that this legal provision does not extend to giving a right to appeal where the high court rejects the prayer to initiate contempt proceedings on the basis of a contempt petition filed by a person. The Supreme Court held that this section gives right to appeal only when some person has been convicted of contempt.
It was held that so far as criminal contempt is concerned, it is a matter entirely between the Court and the alleged contemnor. No one has a statutory or common law right to say that he is entitled as a matter of course to an order for committal because the alleged contemnor is guilty of contempt. All that he can do is to move the Court and draw its attention to the contempt alleged to have been committed and it will then be for the court, if it so thinks fit, to take action to vindicate its authority and commit the alleged contemnor for contempt. It is for the Court in the exercise of its discretion to decide whether or not to initiate a proceeding for contempt. There is no right in anyone to compel the Court to initiate a proceeding for contempt even where a prime facie case appears to have been made out. The same position obtains even after a proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court on a motion made to it for the purpose.
An outside party comes in only by way of drawing the attention of the Court to the contempt which has been committed; he does not become a part to the proceeding for contempt which may be initiated by the Court.
The Supreme Court held that where the Court rejects a motion or a reference and declines to initiate a proceeding for contempt, it refuses to assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt and such a decision cannot be regarded as a decision in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Such a decision would not, therefore, fall within the opening words of S. 19, sub-section (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and no appeal would lie against it as of right under that provision.
But, the Supreme Court held that in such a case there is yet a remedy in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
