Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Delhi High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against NCSC, Upholds Limited Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court  dismissed a contempt petition filed by Dr. Brahma Deo against the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) for alleged non-compliance with a previous court order. In a significant judgment, Justice Jasmeet Singh clarified the contours of contempt jurisdiction, emphasizing, “In contempt jurisdiction, the courts are confined to the four corners of the order of which contempt is alleged and cannot travel beyond the order.”

The petitioner, Dr. Brahma Deo, had accused the NCSC of not adhering to the High Court's order dated 06.09.2022, which directed the Commission to address his grievances related to harassment, non-payment of salary, and non-promotion. Dr. Deo, a medical professional, alleged that he faced adversity in his career due to his refusal to prepare fake injury reports for fake encounters.

Upon reviewing the case, Justice Singh noted that the NCSC had complied with the court’s directive by hearing the petitioner and making a reasoned decision. The judgment stated, “The respondents have granted a hearing to the petitioner on the day as directed and a speaking order has been passed in this regard.” The court further observed that it could not determine the legality of NCSC’s actions within its contempt jurisdiction, a domain strictly limited to assessing compliance with court orders.

Citing the precedent set in Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Anr. V. Tarak Nath Ganguly, Justice Singh reiterated the purpose of contempt jurisdiction as maintaining the dignity of the courts. The judgment read, “The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court.”

The dismissal of the contempt petition marks a significant moment in reinforcing the principle that contempt courts do not extend to the adjudication of disputes that are beyond the specific directives of the court orders. The court granted Dr. Deo the liberty to legally challenge NCSC’s decision if he found it unsatisfactory, thus allowing for the pursuit of justice through appropriate channels.

Date of Decision: 19.12.2023

DR BRAHMA DEO VS MR VIJAY SAMPLA AND OTHERS

 

Latest Legal News