GOSTHO BEHARI DASversusDIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.

1174               [2023] 10
                SUPREME      S.C.R.REPORTS
                           COURT    1174 : 2023 INSC [2023]
                                                     653 10 S.C.R.


 A                          GOSTHO BEHARI DAS
                                         v.
                       DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No.4725 of 2023)
 B                                JULY 28, 2023
                  [B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
              Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : ss. 2, 12 – Contempt of Court
       – Punishment for – Appellant unauthorizedly constructed a structure
       which deviated the plans sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation
 C
       – Demolition order passed, however, the same was not carried out
       by the appellant – Contempt petition against appellant – Order
       passed suspending the appellant’s licence to practice medicine –
       On appeal, held: Punishment of suspension of licence could not be
       given under the 1971 Act – Power to punish a registered medical
 D     practitioner for misconduct rest exclusively with the body envisaged
       under the 1956 Act and the 2019 Act – Punishment handed down to
       the contemnor is entirely foreign to the Act, thus, unsustainable –
       Court in awarding such punishment showed complete disregard for
       the statutory text of the 1971 Act – Judgment and order by the court’s
       below set aside – Licence of the appellant to practice medicine
 E
       revived – Medical Council Act, 1956 – National Medical
       Commission Act, 2019.
             Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the provisions of the National
 F     Medical Commission Act, 2019 as well as the now repealed,
       Medical Council Act, 1956 shows that the power to punish a
       registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rest exclusively
       with the body envisaged under this Act. The Act itself provides
       for an exhaustive, complete mechanism to revoke the licence of
       a registered practitioner for professional misconduct. The same
 G     may be done after holding an inquiry and complying with the
       principles of audi alterum partem. [Para 8][1178-C]
             1.2 The punishment handed down to the contemnor is
       entirely foreign to the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and, thus,

 H
                                       1174
 GOSTHO BEHARI DAS v. DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.                      1175


unsustainable. The Court, in awarding such punishment showed         A
complete disregard for the statutory text of the 1971 Act, which
is abundantly clear in respect of the punishment that can be
imposed thereunder. [Para 20][1182-D]
      1.3 A medical practitioner guilty of contempt of Court may
also be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend     B
on the gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person
in question. They are, however, offences separate and distinct
from each other. The former is regulated by the 1971 Act and the
latter is under the jurisdiction of the National Medical
Commission Act, 2019. [Para 21][1182-E]                              C
      1.4 The Division Bench in the impugned judgment did not
consider or discuss this issue nor was any final decision taken by
the Single Judge in the subject contempt proceedings.The
judgment of the court’s below are set aside. The licence of
the appellant, to practice medicine is revived. [Paras 22 and        D
25][1182-F; 1183-B]
      1.5 The appellant submitted before the High Court that
the requisite demolition has been carried out with the exception
of approximately 250 mm in the rear portion of the concerned
building as, removal of the same would have rendered the             E
building, legally constructed, to be unsafe. In respect of the
unauthorized construction that remains, an undertaking be
furnished before the concerned High Court that remedial
construction to safeguard the soundness of the existing
building and the consequent demolishing of the unauthorized
                                                                     F
construction would be completed within a reasonable time.
[Para 24][1182-G-H; 1183-A]
     Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor 1945 AC
     264; C.S. Karnan, In re (2017) 7 SCC 1; Baradakanta
     Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC
                                                                     G
     374 : [1974] 2 SCR 282; W.B. Administrative Tribunal
     v. SK. Monobbor Hossain (2012) 11 SCC 761; Prashant
     Bhushan, In re (2021) 3 SCC 160 : [2020] 8 SCR 510;
     Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V Dabholkar (1975)
     2 SCC 702 : [1976] 1 SCR 306 – referred to.
                                                                     H
1176            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 10 S.C.R.


 A                             Case Law Reference
       (2017) 7 SCC 1                    referred to                 Para 14
       [1974] 2 SCR 282                  referred to                 Para 15
       (2012) 11 SCC 761                 referred to                 Para 16
 B     [2020] 8 SCR 510                  referred to                 Para 16
       [1976] 1 SCR 306                  referred to                 Para 17
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4725
       of 2023.

 C           From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2022 of the High Court
       of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri in MAT No. 67 of 2022.
           Yashwant Singh, Ms. Deeksha Tripathi, Harshit Goel, Ashish
       Kumar Pandey, Ms. Kheyali Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Ms. Anwesha Saha, Deborshi Dhar, Salim Ansari, Advs. for the
 D     Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             SANJAY KAROL, J.
             Leave granted.
 E           The question this Court must consider, is: –
              “Whether the suspension of the Petitioner’s license to practice
       medicine is alien to the nature and types of punishment and penalties
       specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?”
             THE FACTS
 F
              1. The present appeal stands filed against the judgement rendered
       by the High Court of Calcutta, (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) in MAT No.
       67 of 2022, by which it upheld various orders passed by learned single
       Judge dated 5th, 11th, 12th and 14th July, 2022 in contempt proceedings
       bearing number WPCRC9 of 2022, whereby vide the order dated 11 th
 G     July, 2022 the Petitioner/Appellant’s licence to practice medicine, was
       suspended.
             2. Further with the order dated 14th July 2022, while extending the
       period of suspension till 19th August 2022, the petitioner was asked to
       show cause as to why such suspension be not affected for a period of
 H     two years.
    GOSTHO BEHARI DAS v. DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.                              1177
                  [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

       3. A perusal of the record reveals that the Appellant had                A
unauthorizedly constructed a structure which was in deviation with the
plans sanctioned by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation.1 Respondent No.1
(private party) filed numerous complaints against such unauthorised
construction, but to no avail. Discontented by the non-intervention of the
Commissioner of SMC2, and the SMC3 - appellant herein filed a writ
                                                                                B
petition before the High Court. Vide order dated 22nd December 2016
passed in W.P No. 11464 (W) of 2016, Respondent No. 3 was directed
to have the construction so made, inspected and submit a report before
the court. On the next date of hearing, that is 19th December 2017 it was
directed that the representation that stood already filed before the
Municipal Corporation dated 2nd August 2007, was to be considered and           C
a reasoned order was to be passed thereon.
       4. Pursuant to the above direction, an order dated 13th June 2018,
directing the Respondents No. 3 to demolish the unauthorised construction,
was passed. This order however, came to be quashed by the High Court
observing the Commissioner SMC, not to be the competent authority
                                                                                D
and instead, only the Board of Councillors of the SMC, who could pass
orders for demolition. Subsequently, vide a fresh order dated 25 thJune
2019 the Board of Councillors of SMC while observing the construction
to be unauthorised, ordered its demolition. In furtherance thereto,
Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 3rd August 2019 directing the
demolition to be carried out.                                                   E
       5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner, (Appellant herein) filed
a Writ Petition bearing No. 349/2019 before the High Court of Calcutta
(circuit bench at Jalpaiguri.) The same was disposed of with the
observation that an appeal from the order dated 25 th June 2019, lay
before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs,        F
Government of West Bengal. The said authority passed orders on 8 th
January 2020 and 28th July 2020 directing the SMC to take necessary
steps to aid the petitioner in undertaking self- demolition of the
unauthorised construction and, in the event of his failure to do so, directed
that the SMC itself undertakes such steps to do so.
       6. Respondent No. 1 then filed a contempt petition in WPA No.            G
349 of 2019. It is hereunder that the license to practice medicine, of the
Appellant herein, was suspended.
1
  Hereafter, “SMC”
2
  Hereafter, Respondents No. 2
3
  Hereafter, Respondents No. 3                                                  H
1178                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 10 S.C.R.


 A               LAW ON THE ISSUE AT HAND
              7. The grant, regulation and suspension of the licence to practice
       medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. It
       facilitates the maintenance of a medical register for India and enforces
       high ethical standards in regards of all aspects of medical services. A
 B     statutory body namely the National Medical Commission looks after the
       above-mentioned activities.
              8. A perusal of the provisions of this Act as well as the now
       repealed, Medical Council Act, 1956 shows that the power to punish a
       registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rest exclusively with
 C     the body envisaged under this Act. The Act itself provides for an
       exhaustive, complete mechanism to revoke the licence of a registered
       practitioner for professional misconduct. The same may be done after
       holding an inquiry and complying with the principles of audi alterum
       partem.
 D            9. The instant dispute involves the question as to whether such a
       punishment could be handed down under the Contempt of Courts Act,
       19714.
                 10. Contempt of Court is defined in the Act under Section 2(a) :
                 “2(a). “Contempt of Court” means civil contempt or criminal
 E
                 contempt;”
             11. Civil contempt, with which the present case concerns itself, is
       defined under Section 2(b) which reads as follows:
                 “2(b). “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience o any judgment,
 F               decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful
                 breach of an undertaking given to a court;”
             12. The punishment for contempt of Court is prescribed under
       Section 12 of the Contempt Act, which reads as under:
                 “12. Punishment for contempt of court.- (1) Save as otherwise
 G               expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of
                 court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
                 may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two
                 thousand rupees, or with both:

       4
 H         Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contempt Act’
    GOSTHO BEHARI DAS v. DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.                               1179
                  [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

         Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment           A
         awarded may be remitted or on apology being made to the
         satisfaction of the court.
         Explanation.- An apology shall not be rejected merely on the
         ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it
         bona fide.                                                              B
         (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
         time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of
         that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect
         of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
                             xx            xx            xx”                     C
       13. It may be noted that right from the Privy Council onwards,
judicious and sparing use of the power of contempt has been an accepted
proposition. In Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. Emperor5 the
Council had observed-
         “… this summary power of punishing for contempt of court should         D
         be used sparingly and only in serious cases. It is a power which a
         Court must of necessity possess; its usefulness depends on the
         wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised…”
       14. A Bench of seven judges in C.S. Karnan, In re6, had, referring
to various decisions of other jurisdictions, observed                            E
         “63. The authority to punish for contempt of court has always
         been exercised by the judiciary from times immemorial [ In one
         of the earliest legal pronouncements dealing with the subject,
         Justice Wilmot in R. v. Almon, 1765 Wilmot’s Notes 243 : 97 ER
         94 explained the philosophy behind the power to punish for              F
         contempt of court. The passage now a classic exposition runs as
         follows : (ER p. 100)”… and whenever men’s allegiance to the
         laws is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and most
         dangerous obstruction of justice, and, in my opinion, calls out for a
         more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction
         whatsoever; not for the sake of the Judges, as private individuals,     G
         but because they are the channels by which the King’s justice is
         conveyed to the people.”] . The justification for the existence of
         that is not to afford protection to individual Judges [ “14. … the
5
    1945 AC 264
6
    (2017) 7 SCC 1                                                               H
1180               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 10 S.C.R.


 A              law of contempt is not made for the protection of Judges who
                may be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed
                to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.” [Douglas,
                J., Craig v. Harney, 1947 SCC OnLine US SC 79, para 14 : 91 L
                Ed 1546 : 331 US 367 at p. 376 (1947)]] but to inspire confidence
                in the sanctity and efficacy of the judiciary [ “… The object of the
 B
                discipline enforced by the Court in case of contempt of court is
                not to vindicate the dignity of the court or the person of the Judge,
                but to prevent undue interference with the administration of
                justice.” [Bowen, L.J. — Helmore v. Smith (2), (1886) 35 Ch D
                449 at p. 455 (CA)]] , though they do not and should not flow
 C              from the power to punish for contempt. They should rest on more
                surer foundations. The foundations are—the trust and confidence
                of the people that the judiciary is fearless and impartial.”
            15. Krishna Iyer J. speaking for himself and Bhagwati J. in
       Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar Orissa High Court7 (Constitution
 D     Bench), observed-
                “65. … we would like to underscore the need to draw the lines
                clear enough to create confidence in the people that this ancient
                and inherent power, intended to preserve the faith of the public in
                public justice, will not be so used as to provoke public hostility as
 E              overtook the Star Chamber. A vague and wandering jurisdiction
                with uncertain frontiers, a sensitive and suspect power to punish
                vested in the prosecutor, a law which makes it a crime to publish
                regardless of truth and public good and permits a process of brevi
                manu conviction, may unwittingly trench upon civil liberties and
                so the special jurisdiction and jurisprudence bearing on contempt
 F              power must be delineated with deliberation and operated with
                serious circumspection by the higher judicial echelons. So it is
                that as the palladium of our freedoms, the Supreme Court and the
                High Courts, must vigilantly protect free speech even against
                judicial umbrage — a delicate but sacred duty whose discharge
                demands tolerance and detachment of a high order.”
 G
              16. In W.B. Administrative Tribunal v. SK. Monobbor
       Hossain8, (two-Judge Bench) has observed that the tenor of the dicta
       of this Court on the topic (contempt) is crystal clear. The Court has time
       7
           (1974) 1 SCC 374
 H     8
           (2012) 11 SCC 761
     GOSTHO BEHARI DAS v. DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.                              1181
                   [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

and again asserted that the contempt jurisdiction enjoyed by the Courts          A
is only for the purpose of upholding the majority of the judicial system
that exists. While exercising this power, the Courts must not be
hypersensitive or swung by emotions but must act judiciously. The principle
of sparing use stood reiterated in Prashant Bhushan, In re9
         On the aspect of Punishment under a specified statute                   B
      17. A Bench of seven judges in Bar Council of Maharashtra v.
M.V Dabholkar10 had observed as follows, in respect of the role of
Bar Councils and the powers of disciplinary action vested within them,
as under-
         “24. The scheme and the provisions of the Act indicate that the         C
         constitution of State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India is for
         one of the principal purposes to see that the standards of
         professional conduct and etiquette laid down by the Bar Council
         of India are observed and preserved. The Bar Councils therefore
         entertain cases of misconduct against advocates. The Bar Councils       D
         are to safeguard the rights, privilege and interests of advocates.
         The Bar Council is a body corporate. The Disciplinary Committees
         are constituted by the Bar Council. The Bar Council is not the
         same body as its Disciplinary Committee. One of the principal
         functions of the Bar Council in regard to standards of professional
         conduct and etiquette of advocates is to receive complaints against     E
         advocates and if the Bar Council has reason to believe that any
         advocate has been guilty of professional or other misconduct it
         shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee. A
         most significant feature is that no litigant and no member of the
         public can straightaway commence disciplinary proceedings               F
         against an advocate. It is the Bar Council of a State which initiates
         the disciplinary proceedings.”
                                                        (emphasis supplied)
      18. This Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of
India, (1998) 4 SCC 409 (five-Judge Bench) categorically held that –             G
         “39. Suspending the licence to practice of any professional like a
         lawyer, doctor, chartered accountant etc. when such a professional

9
    (2021) 3 SCC 160
10
     (1975) 2 SCC 702                                                            H
1182            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 10 S.C.R.


 A           is found guilty of committing contempt of court, for any specified
             period, is not a recognized or accepted punishment which a court
             of record either under the common law or under the statutory law
             can impose on a contemner in addition to any of the other
             recognized punishments.”
 B                                                          (emphasis supplied)
              19. A reading of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act shows
       that the punishment prescribed therein is simple imprisonment, not
       exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Rs.2,000/- Sub-Section (2)
       reads “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
 C     being in force” this implies that save and except the punishment provided
       in sub-Section (1) no other punishment can be prescribed to a person
       guilty of committing contempt of Court.
              20. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding
       that the punishment handed down to the contemnor is entirely foreign to
 D     the Act and, therefore, unsustainable. The Court, in awarding such
       punishment showed complete disregard for the statutory text of the
       Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which is abundantly clear in respect of
       the punishment that can be imposed thereunder.
             21. A medical practitioner guilty of contempt of Court may also
 E     be so for professional misconduct but the same would depend on the
       gravity/nature of the contemptuous conduct of the person in question.
       They are, however, offences separate and distinct from each other. The
       former is regulated by the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the latter is
       under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.

 F            22. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment did not consider
       or discuss this issue nor was any final decision taken by the Single Judge
       in the subject contempt proceedings.
             23. The question raised in the instant appeal is answered in the
       above terms.
 G            24. The appellant has submitted before the High Court that the
       requisite demolition has been carried out with the exception of
       approximately 250 mm in the rear portion of the concerned building as,
       removal of the same would have rendered the building, legally constructed,
       to be unsafe. In respect of the unauthorized construction that remains,
       we direct that an undertaking be furnished before the concerned High
 H
  GOSTHO BEHARI DAS v. DIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.                                 1183
                [SANJAY KAROL, J.]

Court that remedial construction to safeguard the soundness of the               A
existing building and the consequent demolishing of the unauthorized
construction shall be completed within a reasonable time.
       25. Consequently, the judgment of the Court’s below, i.e., the
Division Bench and the orders of the Single Judge, High Court of Calcutta,
(Circuit Bench and Jalpaiguri) in MAT No.67 of 2022 and orders dated             B
11th, 12th and 14th of July 2022 are set aside. The licence of the appellant,
to practice medicine is revived.
       26. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The pending application(s),
if any, stands disposed of. No costs.
                                                                                 C
Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H