Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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