Read Time: 09 minutes

Merely because a subordinate official disregarded of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge, held a division bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. 

While dealing with a case of civil contempt the bench noted that as per the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 a civil contempt meant a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court.

"Therefore, what is relevant is the “willful” disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order", said a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh.

An appeal was filed against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the were found appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed by the High Court on September 12, 2008 in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.

The appellants officials submitted that the second appellant was transferred in June 2008 and the appellant no. 1 was in-charge only till  January 2009. The first appellant then died in February 2017.

"There is no willful and deliberate violation of the order involved. The High Court has erred in going into the facts in appreciating evidence. It exceeded its jurisdiction which it declined to exercise even while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It could have relegated the members of the respondent no.1 to go before the committee constituted. There is absolutely no material to implicate the appellants with the alleged action of their subordinates. The concept of vicarious liability is alien to a contempt jurisdiction. Unconditional apologies were also rendered before the High Court", argued the appellants.

In this backdrop the bench noted that when two views were possible, the element of willfulness vanished as it involves a mental element.

"It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding."

While dealing with a contempt petition, the bench noted that a Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated.  it said that the said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings.

A perusal of the facts revealed that the High Court on the earlier occasion while dealing with the challenge made to Section 21 of the Act, made a categorical assertion that it did not wish to go into the disputed questions of fact. However, did so in the order under challenge it was done.

Furthermore, the court found that there existed no material to either establish the appellant's knowledge on the action of their subordinates, or that they acted in collusion with each other.

"Vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt. The question as to whether the drivers of two members of the respondent no.1 showed the order passed by the court and the documents produced are true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication, ought not to have been taken up by the High Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction."

In cases where cess was levied, the court found that individual members of the respondent association could have made their challenge before the committee and the entire exercise of the High Court was not warranted as the aggrieved members of the respondent association could have been well advised to seek the alternative remedy open to them including redressal through the committee.

With this view, the contempt orders were quashed.

Cause Title: DR. U.N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS. v. ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANR.