In the contempt proceedings, the tribunal does not have the power to modify or change the original order (in respect of which the contempt is alleged to have been committed). While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. The court cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings.
In the case of K.G. Derasari v. Union of India, (2001) 10 SCC 496, the Supreme Court held that:
“…the Tribunal was not entitled in a contempt proceeding, to consider the legality of its earlier order which has reached finality not being assailed or annulled by a competent forum. If the Tribunal has not looked into any previous decision of this Court which is the law of the land and by which it was bound, the remedy available to the aggrieved person was to file an application for review. Admittedly, no review application was filed before the Tribunal. In an application for contempt, the Tribunal was only concerned with the question whether the earlier decision has reached its finality and whether the same has been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a tribunal or court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which has not been assailed, and reverse its earlier decision.”
Similarly, in the case of Director of Education v. Ved Prakash Joshi, (2005) 6 SCC 98, the Supreme Court held that while dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If there was no ambiguity or indefiniteness in the order, it is for the party concerned to approach the higher court if according to him the same is not legally tenable. Such a question has necessarily to be agitated before the higher court. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.
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.
.
