>

MANU/SC/0177/2001
Equivalent Citation: 2001(2)AC R1045(SC ), AIR2001SC 1293, 2001(4)ALLMR(SC )255, 2001 (2) AWC 1239 (SC ), JT2001(3)SC 592,
2001(2)RC R(C riminal)260, 2001(2)SC ALE499, (2001)3SC C 739, [2001]2SC R471, 2001(1)UC 526, 2001(2)UJ1106

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petition (civil) 202 of 2000
Decided On: 16.03.2001
Appellants:Mrityunjoy Das and Ors.
vs.
Respondent:Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
U.C. Banerjee and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.B. Sanyal, A.K. Ganguli, Tapash Chandra Ray, R.K.
Gupta, M.K. Singh, Ajai Nand Bardiyar, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjal Banerjee,
Ms. Anindita Gupta, Somnath Mukherjee, V.P. Sharma, Arvind Mishra, N.R. Choudhary,
Jai Prakash Pandey and H.K. Puri, Advs. N.R. Choudhary, Sr. Advs
Case Note:
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-- Section 2--Disobedience of order--In terms of
the provisions of the Act-- Proceeding is quasi criminal--Standard of proof
required is that of criminal proceeding and breach shall have to be established
beyond reasonable doubt. (Para--14)

JUDGMENT
U.C. Banerjee, J.
1 . The introduction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the statute book has been
for purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general for due and
proper administration of justice in the country. It is a powerful weapon in the hands of
the law courts by reason where for it must thus be exercised with due care and caution
and for larger interest.
2 . Incidentally, a special leave petition (1416/1997) was filed before this Court by
Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangh against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court
pertaining to the question of constitutionality of certain provisions of West Bengal Land

08-09-2020 (Page 1 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School

Reforms Amendment Acts 1981 and 1986. The said Sangha filed an Interlocutory
Application being I.A. No. 3 of 1999 for issuance of certain directions which inter alia
reads as below:
"(a) direct the State of West Bengal and its Revenue Authorities not to initiate
any proceedings for vesting of the land against the members of the Petitioner-
Sangha and if any vesting proceeding has been already initiated against the
members of the Petitioner-Sangha in that event not to pass any order and
maintain status-quo in respect of the land in question in all respect till the
disposal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1416 of 1997 pending before
this Hon'ble Court or in alternative clarify that the order dated 20.3.1998 as
quoted in paragraph 19-20 will apply only to the parties thereto and not to the
members of the Petitioner No. 1 Sangha."
3 . The Interlocutory Application was heard on 29th October, 1999 and this Court was
pleased to pass an order therein to the following effect:
"At the request of Learned counsel for the Applicants four weeks' time is
granted to enable him to put on record appropriate information regarding
members of the Sangha for whom the application is moved and the nature of
the stay required.
In the meantime Learned Counsel for the Respondent will also take appropriate
instructions in connection with this I.A.
4 . Subsequently on 16th December, 1999, this Court in I.A. No. 3 passed an interim
order to the effect as below:
"Having heard Learned counsel for the parties, by way of an interim order, it is
directed that status-quo regarding possession on spot shall be maintained by
both the sides in connection with the members of the Petitioner-Sangha who
were before the High Court in the Writ Petition out of which the present
proceedings arise. (Emphasis supplied)
In the meantime, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State of West
Bengal will verify the list of these members, (Emphasis supplied) which is
furnished to him by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and subject to that
verification further orders will be passed after three months.
To be placed after three months."
5. In the application (I.A. No. 3) a further order was passed on 17th April, 2000 which
reads as below:
"We have heard learned senior counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Shanti Bhushan
and Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-State of West Bengal, Mr. Ray,
Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-State of West Bengal is right when he
says that some more time is required as 13,000 persons are listed and they
have to ascertain about their existence on the spot. We grant time up to the end
of July, 2000. I.A. will be placed in the second week of August, 2000. In the
meantime, at the request of Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Shanti
Bhusan we grant additional interim relief in continuation of our earlier order
dated 16.12.1999 to the effect that if in the meantime, any vesting orders have
been passed in respect of the lands of members of Petitioner - Sangha who

08-09-2020 (Page 2 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School

 were before the High Court in the matter out of which the present proceedings
arise, then those vesting orders shall not be implemented until further orders."
6 . It is this order which is said to have been violated and thus bringing the orders of
this Court into ridicule. The factum of violation is said to have been deliberate since in
spite of the order as above and even after the service of the order dated 17th April,
2000 to the authorities of Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal for its
compliance, the Petitioner No. 1 being a resident of village Amriti, District, Malda, West
Bengal and a life member of the Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumijibi Sangha was served
with a notice dated 5.4.2000 under Section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act
together with Section 14T(3) of the said Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules framed
thereunder by the Revenue Officer Cell, Malda asking to submit details of land held by
him and his family members since 7.8.1969 and particulars of land transferred by him
after that date. The records depict that a reply to the said notice was furnished as early
as 30th April, 2000 alongwith the certification of membership of the Sangha and copy of
the order dated 16th December, 1999 passed by this Court. It further appears that a
hearing did take place and the Revenue Officer passed an order of vesting on 17th April,
2000. Subsequently, on the factual matrix, it appears that by the notice dated 26th
April, 2000 issued by the Revenue Officer, possession of 37.471/2 acres of land was
directed to be made over to the Land Revenue Authority on 27.4.2000. It has been the
definite case of the petitioners that in spite of receipt of both the orders dated 16th
December, 1999 and 17th April, 2000, the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, English
Bazar. Malda came on the site and took possession of the said land. Similar is the
situation as regards the land belonging to petitioner No. 2 and possession 20.76 acres
of land was also obtained by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, English Bazar,
Malda. This act of obtaining possession from the applicants herein is stated to be a
deliberate violation of this Court's order and thus cannot but be ascribed to be
contemptuous in nature.
7 . Mr. Sanyal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the petition for
Contempt contended that the high handedness of the executive authorities is apparent
in the deliberate action of taking over possession of land from two of the members of
the Samiti even after coming to know of the orders of this Court and resultantly
committing an act of gross contempt.
8. Admittedly, this Court passed an order on 17th April, 2000 as a continuation of the
earlier order dated 16th December, 1999 to the effect that if in the meantime, any
vesting order has been passed in respect of the land of members of petitioner's Sangha
who were before the High Court in the matter out of which the present proceeding arise,
then those vesting orders shall not be implemented until further orders. The order dated
16th December, 2000 also categorically records the maintenance of status quo
regarding possession on spot by both the State and Private Respondents. As regards
however the Private Respondents, the order was directed to be made applicable to the
cases of the members of the petitioner's Sangha who were before the High Court in the
Writ Petition out of which the present proceeding arose.
9. Needless to state that Land Reforms Legislation in States have been introduced with
a view to proceed with the socialistic approach as enshrined in the Constitution. The
amendments have been effected in the main provisions of the act, validity of which
stands further scrutiny before this Court. We are however, not called upon to delve into
these issues neither we intend to do the same. The noting aforesaid is just to introduce
the subject for our consideration though in a separate jurisdiction being of extra-
ordinary nature but as conferred by and under the statute.

08-09-2020 (Page 3 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School

1 0 . Let us however, at this juncture consider the counter affidavit as filed by the
alleged Contemnors and assess the situation as to whether there is any deliberate act on
the part of the revenue officers of the State or an omission to note the true effect of the
order which has resulted in such an action which is said to be contemptuous in nature.
The alleged Contemnors No. 2 and 3 being Sayed Kadar Hossain and Chitaranjan
Chakraborti stated that as officers of the Government, they have tried to discharge their
duties to the best of their ability, capacity and understanding. There was never any
motive or intention to violate or disobey the orders of this Court. In paragraphs 4 and 5
alleged contemnors stated as below.
"4. We respectfully submit that as understood by us that the number of the
Petitioner-Sangha who were before the High Court in the Writ Petition were
understood by us as parties on the date on which the Writ Petition was filed.
The petitioners themselves have admitted that they became members only in
1992-93, and the order of this Hon'ble Court would not be applicable then as
they were not members of the Sangha on the date of filing the Writ Petition. If
the interpretation given by the Petitioners was sought to be accepted, then
there could be no occasion for this Hon'ble Court making the order for
verification of members of the Sangha. We never proceeded with the matter to
violate the orders of this Hon'ble Court.
5 . We also submit that in the proceedings, the Petitioners were given full
opportunity of being heard and in fact the Petitioner appeared through Advocate
and made submission and after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and also the material on record, the Revenue Officer being the competent
Authority under the Act (Contemnor No. 2) recorded the following finding.
"It appears from certificate which was issued by that Sangha that Sl.
No. of Life Membership of raiyat Mrityunjoy Das is 2698/93. It is clear
that the raiyat obtained membership in the year 1993 and he was not
the member of the said Sangha during the time of filing the Writ
Applicant or before the Hon'ble High Court. So the raiyat is not entitled
to get benefit of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
16.12.1999."
A true copy of the order dated 17.4.2000 in this regard is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure- R 1/1.
We further submit that we have not tried to justify the conduct any way, by
making the aforesaid statements and have stated these only to explain the
circumstances and if any lack of understanding as aforesaid has resulted in
violation of this order and consequently the Contempt of Court, I repent for the
same and tender my unqualified apology before this Hon'ble Court. I further
submit that whatever I have done was in the course of my official work as a
Government servant and I have no personal interest whether the process of
Land Reforms continues or halts. On the face of this order of this Hon'ble Court,
or in that way any Order of any Court, which I am duty bound to obey, I again
submit that if my interpretation of the order of this Hon'ble Court was wrong
that was because of my limitations to understand but there is nothing malafide
in it and I cannot think of over-reaching or flouting the order of this Hon'ble
Court in any way or under any circumstances."
11. On the state of pleadings as above, Mr. Tapas Chandra Ray, the learned Senior

08-09-2020 (Page 4 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School

Advocate appearing for the Respondents with his usual eloquence submitted that the
order of this Court dated 16th December, 1999 pertaining to the maintenance of status
quo regarding possession, has been rather categorical in its application: This Court has
restricted its applicability to the members of the petitioners Sangha who were before
the High Court in the Writ Petition and not all and sundry. Mr. Ray drew the attention of
the Court to a portion of the order (as emphasized in page 3 hereof) and submitted that
a contra interpretation to the order would not only be grossly irregular but be totally
unsubstantiated. The user of the words "who were before the High Court in the writ
petition" shall have to be attributed some meaning and the intention has been rather
clear and categorical as to its applicability. Mr. Ray contended that this Court obviously
could not indulge in surplusage or record a specific order without attributing any
meaning thereto and it is in this context Mr. Ray further contended that in any event, if
two explanations are available and out of which one stands adopted by the alleged
contemnors which cannot by any stretch, be termed to be wholly unwarranted, question
of returning a verdict of guilty in an Application for Contempt does not and cannot
arise.
12. Contra however, is the submission of Mr. Sanyal and Mr. Ganguli for the petitioners
with reference to the user of the words "present proceeding" by this Court which cannot
as contended but mean that the order has been intended to apply to the applicants
before this Court, in addition to the members who were members on the date of filing
of the Writ Petition and this by no stretch be restrictive at all. Since, otherwise the order
would only be partial and a majority of the persons proceeding with this litigation as
parties herein would be deprived of the same - a situation which cannot possibly be
conceived in the matters of an order of this Court since this Court confers benefit on to
those who seek relief in a proceeding before this Court - indeed an attractive
submission.
13. Before however, proceeding with the matter any further, be it noted that exercise of
powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautious and use of it
rather sparingly after addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct.
The Court must otherwise come to a conclusion that the conduct complained of
tentamounts to obstruction of justice which if allowed, would even permeate in our
society (vide Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr.: MANU/SC/0042/2000 :
2000CriL J1394 ) - this is a special jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish
an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law. It is in
this context that the observations of the this Court in Murray's case (supra) in which
one of us (Banerjee, J.) was party needs to be noticed.
"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of
the Courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people
cannot be led to be distorted. The respect and authority commanded by Courts
of Law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entire
democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the
judiciary is undermined. It is true that the judiciary will be judged by the
people for what the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which
even can remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound
to lose confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would
forfeit the trust and confidence of the people in general."
14. The other aspect of the matter ought also to be noticed at this juncture viz., the
burden and standard of proof. The common English phrase "he who asserts must prove"
has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting

08-09-2020 (Page 5 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School

the act of contempt. As regards the 'standard of proof', be it noted that a proceeding
under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the
Contempt of Court Act is quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is
that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond
reasonable doubt.
The observations of Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale 1969 3 All ER 1062 lend support to
the aforesaid. Lord Denning in Re Bramblevale stated:
"A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent
to prison for it,. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time-honoured
phrase, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not proved by
showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be
some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then
his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other
evidence.... Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the
Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable
doubt."
15. In this context, the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Archana Guha v.
Ranjit Guha Neogi 1989 (II) CHN 252 in which one of us was a party (Banerjee, J.)
seem to be rather apposite and we do lend credence to the same and thus record our
concurrence therewith.
1 6 . I n The Aligarh Municipal Board and Others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and
Others MANU/SC/0075/1970 : 1970CriL J1520 , this Court in no uncertain term stated
that in order to bring home a charge of contempt of court for disobeying orders of
Courts, those who assert that the alleged contemners had knowledge of the order must
prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. This Court went on to observe that in case of
doubt, the benefit ought to go to the person charged.
1 7 . In a similar vein in V.G. Nigam and others v. Kedar Nath Gupta and another
MANU/SC/0419/1992 : 1992CriL J3576 , this Court stated that it would be rather
hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt
jurisdiction on mere probabilities.
18. Having discussed the law on the subject, let us thus at this juncture analyse as to
whether in fact, the contempt alleged to have been committed by the alleged
contemners, can said to have been established firmly without there being any element
of doubt involved in the matter and that the Court would not be acting on mere
probabilities having however, due regard to the nature of jurisdiction being quasi
criminal conferred on to the law courts. Admittedly, this Court directed maintenance of
status quo with the following words - "the members of the petitioner-Sangha who were
before the High Court in the writ petition out of which the present proceedings arise".
And it is on this score the applicant contended categorically that the intent of the Court
to include all the members presenting the Petition before this Court whereas for the
Respondent Mr. Ray contended that the same is restricted to the members who filed the
writ petition before the High Court which culminated in the initiation of proceeding
before this Court. The Counter affidavit filed by the Respondents also record the same.
The issue thus arises as to whether the order stands categorical to lend credence to the
answers of the respondent or the same supports the contention as raised by the
applicants herein - Incidentally, since the appeal is pending in this Court for
adjudication, and since the matter under consideration have no bearing on such

08-09-2020 (Page 6 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School

adjudication so far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, we are not expressing
any opinion in the matter neither we are required to express opinion thereon, excepting
however, recording that probabilities of the situation may also warrant a finding, in
favour of the interpretation of the applicant. The doubt persists and as such in any
event the respondents being the alleged contemners are entitled to have the benefit or
advantage of such a doubt having regard to the nature of the proceeding as noticed
herein before more fully.
1 9 . In view of the observations as above, we are not also inclined to go into the
question of apology.
20. On the wake of the aforesaid, this Contempt Petition fails and is dismissed without
however, any order as to costs.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

08-09-2020 (Page 7 of 7) www.manupatra.com Gitarattan International Business School