Holding

Contempt proceedings must strictly follow the procedure prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the applicable High Court Rules; failure to give notice and a hearing renders the contempt orders invalid, and the case may be disposed of upon the contemnor’s undertaking.

Summary

Dr. Prodip Kumar Biswas, who runs alternative‑medicine institutions, advertised that his institutions were approved by the Calcutta High Court. A writ petition led the High Court to restrain him from using the Court’s name and to hold him guilty of criminal contempt, imposing a Rs 2,000 fine (order dated 11 May 1998). A subsequent contempt petition alleged continued use of the Court’s name on a website, and the High Court ordered his custody (order dated 10 July 1998) and later released him on bail. Biswas appealed, contending that the High Court had not complied with Sections 15 and 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 nor Rules 19 and 20 of the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975 – no notice, no rule nisi, and no hearing were afforded. The Supreme Court held that the procedural safeguards for contempt proceedings were violated, set aside both impugned orders, and disposed of the contempt case by accepting Biswas’s undertaking, filed in an affidavit on 25 March 2004, not to use the High Court’s name in future advertisements.

Issues considered

The High Court complied with the procedural requirements of Sections 15 and 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975 while initiating and deciding contempt proceedings.
Whether a contempt order can be set aside for failure to give notice and a hearing to the alleged contemnor.
Whether the contempt case may be disposed of upon the contemnor’s undertaking without a fresh hearing.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 14, s. 15, s. 17

Subjects

contempt of courtprocedural fairnesscriminal contemptfalse advertisingalternative medicinemisuse of court namenotice and hearingundertakingContempt of Courts ActCalcutta High Court Rules

Judgment

DR. PRODIP KUMAR BISWAS A
v.
SUBRATA DAS AND ORS.

APRIL 2, 2004

B
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
} .....

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

Ss. 15 and 17-Proceedings for contempt of court-Procedure to be C
followed-Writ petition filed before High Court alleging false representations
made by appellant in its advertisements and prospectus using the name of the
High Court-In appeal Division Bench of High Court noticing a false affidavit
having been filed by appellant before it-High Court restraining the appellant
from using the name of the High Court in its future advertisements and D
publications as also holding him guilty of criminal contempt of court-Later
on a contempt petition filed .against appellant for disobeying Court's order,
High Court directing appellant to be taken into custody and subsequently
releasing him on bail-Held, appellant was not granted reasonable opportunity
before passing the two orders-Neither any notice of contempt issued to
appellant nor any hearing took place in the contempt matter-Orders of High E
Court set aside-On an undertaking given by appellant, contempt case disposed
of-Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules,1975-Rr. 19 and 20.

Appellant was running institutions of alternative medicines. A writ
petition was filed in Calcutta High Court by respondent alleging false
claims to have been made by the appellant in the publications and F
advertisements issued in connection with admission to his institutions
including that his institution was also approved by the High Court of
Calcutta. Another writ petition was filed by a different person against
another institution and its proprietor. The earlier writ petition filed against
the appellant was disposed of by a Single Judge in terms of the order G
passed in the subsequent writ petition. This order was challenged by the
respondent in appeal before Division Bench on the ground that the writ
petition filed by him was not disposed of on merits. The High Court.. noticed
that the appellant had also filed an affidavit making a false statement
therein that the Chief Justice of the High Court along with other Judges
H
709
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A attended a party along with the respondent in the second writ petition who
was facing forgery charge. The Division Bench by judgment and order
dated 11.5.1998 restrained the appellant and his institutions from using
the name of the High Court or giving reference to any case decided by
the said Court either in prospectus or in any advertisement. It also held
B the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed upon him
a fine of Rs. 2000.

Later, respondent No. I also filed a contempt petition before the :,... ,
Division Bench alleging that the appellant was still using the name of the
High Court in the Website and as such continued to violate the orders of
C the Court. The Division Bench by order dated 10.7.1998 held that a case
of gross and deliberate disobedience of the direction of the Court was made
out; and directed the appellant to be taken into custody. Later the
appellant was released on bail. The appellant filed the present appeals
against both the decisions holding him guilty of contempt of court.

D It was contended for the appellant that he was directed to be taken
into custody without following the procedure envisaged by the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 and the Contempt of Courts Calcutta High Court
Rules, 1975 and without affording any opportunity to the appellant to
defend himself.

E Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: I. I. On facts, the appellant was not granted reasonable
opportunity before passing of the impugned judgment and order dated
I Ith May, 1998 or the impugned order dated 10th July, 1998. On the
Division Bench of the High Court not being satisfied about the contents
F and tenor of the affidavit dated 29th April, 1998, counsel for the appellant
sought an opportunity to file an affidavit tendering apology. That affidavit
was tendered by the appellant on 5th May, 1998. Thereafter, no hearing
took place. In fact, it seems that no hearing took place after 30th April,
1998. When respondent No. I again moved the Court by the impugned
G order dated 10th July, 1998, the appellant was taken into custody, and
later released on bail. Thereafter time was granted to file reply to contempt
application. At no stage was the appellant noticed of the contempt, as
provided in Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in particular under ss. 15 and
17 thereof; nor was the rule nisi drawn up as envisaged under rr. 19 and
H 20 of the Conten:pt of Courts Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975.
[715-F-G; 716-C, E-GI
DR. P.K. 131SW AS v. SUB RA TA DAS 711
1.2. The contempt proceedings should not be initiated lightly. The A
contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and
with caution whenever an act ad\•ersely affects the administration of justice
or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence
in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when
the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of
the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty B
and dignity of the courts of law. (712-B-CI

Supreme Court Bar Association v. U11io11 of India and Anr., (1998( 4
sec 409, relied on.
1.3. Since, in the instant case, in the· face of the infirmities, the
c
impugned orders cannot be sustained, one course that can be adopted is
to remand the contempt case for a fresh decision by the High Court, in
accordance with I.aw and the other course that can be adopted is to dispose
of the contempt case as also these appeals on the basis of an affidavit dated
25th March, 2004 that has been filed by the appellant in this Court. It D
would be expedient to adopt the later course which would meet the ends
of justice. In the affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 the appellant has
undertaken not to mention the name of the High Court in any
advertisement or publicity in connection with his institution in future. In
the light of this affidavit, on the facts of the case, no useful purpose will
be served in continuing with the contempt proceedings against the E
appellant. The contempt"case is disposed of by accepting the undertaking
as contained in the affidavit of the appellant. (717-C-F(

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
603 of 1998.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.5.98 of the Calcutta High Court
in M.A.T. No. 462 of 1998.

WITH

Crl. A. No. 795 of 1998 . G
.' '" A.K. Ganguly, Kailash Yasdev. S.C. Ghosh and Brij Bhushan for the
Appellant.

Himanshu Sekhar, G.S. Chatte1jee, Angad Mirdha, Maninder Singh,
Pratihha M. Singh. Kritiman Singh, Ms. A Subhashini and Tara Chandra H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered ty

Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. These two appeds have been filed under
Section 19 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act'). In one
B of the appeals, the challenge is to the impugned . udgrnent and order of the
High Court whereby the appellant ha~ been held guilty of criminal contempt
of court and fine of Rs. 2,000 has been imposed uprn him. The main grievance
that has been urged by learned counsel in suppo1t of the appeal is that the
High Court before holding the appellant guilty md imposing fine neither
C issued any notice nor afforded any opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
In the second appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order of the High
Court whereby the appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith
though later on the same date, he was ordered tc be released on bail. Both
the appeals are offshoot of the same litigation pe 1ding in the High Court in
respect whereof we may make a brief reference.
D
Respondent No. I filed Writ Application (WI' No.20305(W) of 1997) in
the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying that the State-respondents be
directed to take appropriate action against the arpellant and the institutions
run by him and he be stopped from deceiving put lie by issue of publications
and advertisements in different newspapers making false claims giving an
E impression that only his institution on alternative medicines was recognized
by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal
and approved by Medical Council of India as ilso by the High Court of
Calcutta. It was claimed that by such false representations, the writ petitioner
(respondent No. I herein) had been duped; made payment of the requisite fee
F and took admission in the Medical College of A ternative Medicines run by
the appellant. In another Writ Application (WP N o.143 7/97) filed by one Mr.
Bidyut Kumar Guha Roy, allegations had been made against one Dr. S.K.
Agarwal and his institution on alternative medicines viz. Indian Board of
Alternative Medicines and Open International University for Alternative
Medicines. In the said writ petition neither the arpellant or his institution nor
G respondent No. I were parties.

The writ application of Respondent No. I was disposed of by learned )f •

Single Judge of the High Court in terms of the c·rder passed in Writ Petition
No.1437 of 1997. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in
appeal (MAT No.462 of 1998) filed by respondrnt No. I. One of the grounds
H urged in the appeal was that the subject matter of Writ Petition No.1437 of
\ ..

DR. P.K. Bl SW AS v. SUBRATA DAS [SABHARWAL. J.] 713
1997 was different from the subject matter of Writ Petition No.20305(W) of A
1997 and the learned Single Judge committed serious illegality in not going
into the merits and merely disposing of the writ petition in terms of the order
passed in Writ Petition No.143 7 of 1997. By the impugned judgment, the
learned Division Bench held that it was the duty of the learned Single Judge
to dispose of the Writ Petition No.20305(W) of 1997 on merits. The Bench
further held that instead of remanding the matter, Writ Petition No.20305(W) B
of 1997 can be disposed of by restraining the appellant herein and his
institutions from using the name of the court or giving reference to any case
decided by the Calcutta High Court either in the prospectus or in any
advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that
High Court has approved the said institutions or recognized those as having C
authority to impart knowledge about the system of alternative medicine.

The issue in these appeals is not about the correctness of the judgment
of the High Court in disposing of the appeal and the writ petition of Respondent
No.1 in the aforesaid manner. However, by the same judgment and order, the
Division Bench held the appellant guilty of criminal contempt of court and D
imposed fine on him, as earlier noticed. We are concerned only with the part
of the order that deals with the contempt aspect.

The impugned judgment and order of the High Court shows that during
hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted before the Division
Bench that his client in future either in the prospectus or in any ad~ertisement E
would not make reference to any case decided by the High Court. But no
sooner the counsel after making the submission left the court after taking
leave of the court, attention of the court was drawn to a supplementary
affidavit that had been filCd by the appellant in the appeal without leave of
the court. It was filed on the same date when the counsel concluded the F
argument and left the court, namely, 29th April, 1998. It was, inter alia,
stated in that affidavit that Hon'ble the Chief Justice along with some other
judges of the Calcutta High Court attended the 5th International Conference
of Alternative Medicines held at Park Hotel, Calcutta on I st December, 1997
along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal, President, Indian Board of Alternative Medicines
who was facing forgery charge for forging the seal and signature of the G
learned 5th Assistant District Judge, Alipore. The newspapers carrying
photographs were annexed to the said affidavit. The impugned order further
records that on the next date of hearing, i.e., 30th April, 1998 the appellant
was personally present in cuurt and his counsel prayed for time till 5th May,
1998 to file unqualified apology for affirming false statement in the affidavit H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORT'i [2004) 3 S.C.R.

A that had been earlier filed by the appellant as notiC•!d by the Court on 29th
April, 1998. One of the false averments in that affid2vit that has been noticed
by the Division Bench is about the photograph of Chief Justice of the Calcutta
High Court being along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal. He impugned order, inter
a/ia, records that the person standing next to the Chief Justice was not Dr.
B S.K. Agarwal but was another Hon'ble Judge of the High Court and the
persons not recognizing the Chief Justice and the sad learned Judge may get
confused and believe that Dr. S.K. Agarwal was stmding next to the Chief
Justice. The said photograph shows that between t11e Chief Justice and Dr.
S.K. Agarwal, another learned Judge of the High Ccurt was standing, though
Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, points out
C that strictly speaking in the photograph, learned Chief Justice may not be
standing along with Dr. S.K. Agarwal as another le<irned Judge was standing
in between the two, but it is of neither any consequence nor any motive of
the appellant can be attributed on that account.

With reference to the affidavit that was filed by the appellant tendering
D unqualified apology, the impugned order holds that the same is not in tune
with the submissions that were made by learned counsel for the appellant on ._ I

30th April, 1998. The impugned order notices that :he affidavit declares that
it has been filed in compliance with the direction of the court, though there
was no such dire~tion. The affidavit tendering apolcgy sought to explain how
E inadvertently the name of the other Judge who wa~. in between Dr. Agarwal
and the Chief Justice was omitted to be mentioned. The affidavit further
states in the penultimate paragraph that as per the c irections of the court, the
appellant gives undertaking to the Hon 'ble Court t!iat he shall not make any
newspaper advertisement on behalf of the institutions stating that those
institutions are approved and recognized by Hon'b e High Court of Calcutta.
F These are the circumstances under which the appel.ant has been found guilty
of criminal contempt of court for creating an impression in the mind of the
public that his institutions have been approved by th: High Court for imparting
education for alternative medicine and a fine of Ls.2,000/- imposed on the
appellant failing which he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment
G for seven days. This judgment and order dated 11th May, 1998 is subject
matter of challenge in Criminal Appeal No.603 of 1998.

Respondent No. I herein in MAT No.462 of I j98 filed another contempt . '

petition (CPA No.1054of1998) on 4th June, 1998 drawing the attention of "'
the Division Bench to the fact that the appellant \las still using the name of
H the High Court in the website and as such contin1Jed to violate the order of
DR. P.K. 131SWAS v. SUl3RATA DAS [SAl3HARWAL . .I.] 715

the Court. That contempt petition was taken up on 10th July, 1998, when the A
learned Division Bench passed the impugned order observing therein that it
was satisfied that the case of gross and deliberate disobedience of the directions
of the court had been made out; and since the allegations of respondent No. I
are supported by strong and cogent evidence and the contemnor has chosen
to ·1iolate the directions of the court when he has already been convicted for B
his contumacious behaviour and conduct in course of the proceedings before
the court, he shall be taken in custody of the court and remanded to prison
until further orders subject to his right to seek release on condition of bail,
if so advised. The appellant was directed to be taken into custody forthwith
and remanded to prison. The Deputy Sheriff of the court was directed to take
him into custody and place him with the Superintendent Presidency Jail who C
was directed to accept him for purpose of compliance of the order of the
court. After passing ofthe·order, on application for grant of bail, the appellant
was directed to be released on bail on execution of personal bond and surety
with undertaking to appear before the Court. In terms of the said order, he
was released on bail. This order dated I 0th July, 1998 is subject matter of
Criminal Appeal No.795 of 1998. Incidentally, it may be noted that in this D
regard, the submission of Mr. Ganguly is that the appellant had taken steps
for deletion of the offending portion from the website which had been opened
before the order dated 1Ith May, 1998 and in case the reference to the court
was continuing in some of the websites, it was on account of bona fide
inadvertent error. The main contention urged in support of the appeal is that E
the appellant was directed to be taken into custody without following the
procedure envisaged by the Act and the Rules framed by the High Court
under the Act and without affording any opportunity let alone a reasonable
opportunity to the appellant to defend himself.

From the facts aforenoted, it cannot be seriously disputed that the F
appellant was not granted reasonable opportunity before passing of the
impugned judgment and order dated 11th May, 1998 or the impugned order
dated 10th July, 1998. It is clear from the narration of facts that on the
Division Bench not being satisfied about the contents and tenor of the affidavit
dated 29th April, 1998, counsel for the appellant sought an opportunity to file G
an affidavit tendering apology. That affidavit was tendered by the appellant
on 5th May, 1998. It is not in dispute that after filing of the affidavit dated
5th May, 1998, no hearing took place. In fact, it seems that no hearing took
place after 30th April, 1998. At no stage was the appellant noticed of the
contempt. Atler the conclusion of submissions of counsel for the appellant on
29th April, 1998, the court found that without leave of the court, an affidavit H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A affirmed on the same date had been filed by the appellant. The matter was
posted on the next day when counsel for the appellant asked for time to file
affidavit of apology which was filed on 5th May, 1998 and the impugned
order passed on 11th May, 1998, without there being hearing after 30th
April. The main issue before the Court was about the appellant giving out in
B advertisements and prospectus that his institution h.is been approved by the
High Court. The Division Bench, as above noticed, instead of remanding the
writ petition for disposal before the Single Judge restrained the appellant
from using the name of the court by the same judgment and order dated I Ith
>- '
May. 1998 by which he was held to be guilty of co~tempt. When respondent
No.I again moved the Court, by the impugned ordff dated 10th July, 1998,
C the appellant was taken into custody, then released o 1 bail and thereafter time
was granted to file reply to contempt application.

The procedure to initiate contempt proceedinp has been laid down in
the Act. Section 14 lays down the procedure when tte contempt is in the face
of the Supreme Court or a High Court. The case ir hand is not covered by
D Section 14 of the Act. It is not a case of contempt in the face of the Court.
That was also not the submission urged on behalf or Respondent No. I Jn the ... '
case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14
of the Act, the procedure to take cognizance has been laid down in Section
I 5 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 15, inter 1/ia, provides that every
E motion or reference made under the Section shall specify the contempt of
which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. The procedure to be followed
after taking cognizance has been provided for in Section 17 of the Act.
Section 17 provides that notice of every proceed in~ under Section 15 shall
be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to
be recorded directs otherwise. It also sets out the docl ments which are required
F to be accompanied with the notice. The Calcutta High Court, in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 23 of the Act and Artie e 215 of the Constitution
of India has made rules to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or
of a court subordinate to it under the Act being the Contempt of Courts
Calcutta High Court Rules, 1975. Rule 19, inter alia, provides that the Court
G may issue rule nisi. It further provides that the rul1: nisi shall be drawn up,
as far as may be, in the model form in Form No. I, Appendix I. Rule 20, inter
a/ia, provides that where a rule is issued by the Court on its own motion
under Rule 15, the rule nisi shall be drawn up, as fa· as may be, in the model
form in Form No.2, Appendix I. Rule 29 provides that the respondent or the
contemnor may file an affidavit showing cause and the petitioner may file a
H reply thereto within such time as may be directed by the Court. The court
DR. P.K. BIS WAS r. SUBRATA DAS [SABHAR WAL. J.) 717

may, however, in a contempt proceeding take such evidence as may be A
considered necessary. Admittedly, rule nisi was not drawn up. In fact, it
seems that neither any notice of contempt was issued to the appellant nor any
hearing took place except what has been noticed hereinbefore.

The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly B
and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of
justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence
in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the
act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the
courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and
dignity of the courts of law. {See Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union C
of India and Anr., [1998] 4 SCC 409}.

The contempt proceedings should not be initiated lightly. Since, in the
present case, in the face of the infirmities abovenoticed, the impugned
judgment and order cannot be sustained, one course that can be adopted is
to remand the contempt case for its fresh decision by the Hig~ Court, after D
due observance of the rules and affording opportunity to the appellant and
the other course that can be adopted is to dispose of the contempt case as also
these appeals on the basis of an affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 that has
been filed by the appellant in this Court. We are of the view that it would be
expedient to adopt the later course which would meet the ends of justice. E

In the affidavit dated 25th March, 2004 the appellant has undertaken
not to mention the name of the High Court in any advertisement or publicity
in connection with his institution in future. In the light of this affidavit, on
the facts of the present case, we do not think that any useful purpose will be
served in continuing with the contempt proceedings against the appellant. F
In the light of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 11th May, 1998 and also the impugned order dated I0th July,
1998 and dispose of the contempt case by accepting the undertaking of the
appellant as contained in his affidavit filed in this Court.
G
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

R.P. Appeals disposed of.