HIMANSHU KUMAR SHARMA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 352 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 branding the same as suffers from manifest arbitrariness, illegal and beyond the rule making authority of the High Court under Sec. 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the aforesaid rule on the following factual backdrop: -

(3.) In exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has framed the rules namely, the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. Part (F) of Chapter XVIII of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 (for short, 'the Rules of 2007') provides for the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007. The said rules have been framed in exercise of power conferred under Sec. 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). These rules prescribe the procedure of adjudicating the contempt case initiated by the High Court as well as by the subordinate court. Sec. 23 of the Act of 1971 only prescribes that the High Court and the Supreme Court can make rules and the rules so made must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1971. Rule 350(1) of the Rules of 2007 provides that reference under Sec. 15(2) (criminal contempt) of the Act of 1971 may be made by subordinate courts either suo motu or on an application received by it. Rule 350(2) of the Rules of 2007 provides that before making a reference, the subordinate court shall conduct a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show cause accompanied by copies of relevant documents, if any, to the contemner and after receiving the reply, if any, of the show cause notice, the subordinate court shall write a concise reasoned order of reference indicating why contempt appears to have been committed. Sec. 10 of the Act of 1971 empowers the High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts exercising the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself and since there is no provision for filing contempt petition for non-compliance of the order(s) passed by civil court, Rule 352 of the Rules of 2007 deserves to be struck down as unconstitutional.