Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

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

 

Similar News