RAM SARAN TEWARI Vs. RAJ BAHADUR VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I would answer the question in the negative; I regret I cannot agree with the view expressed by my learned brothers to the effect that Nyaya Panchayats are as courts subordinate to this Court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. They may be "courts" but I am not persuaded to hold them to be subordinate to this Court. in the case of Sukhdeo Baiswar v. Brij Bhusan, AIR 1951 All 667 referred to by them. I did hold that they are subordinate to this Court but I revised the view in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Ratan Shukla, AIR 1956 All 2.58 and Bishun Kant v. Vijai Bahadur Singh, Cr. Misc. Contempt Case No. 6 of 1959, D/25- 11-1959 (All).

(2.) Neither (the Contempt of Courts Act nor the Constitution, ,nor any other enactment explains which Courts are subordinate to this Court. The Government of India Act and the Constitution have used different phrases to describe how other Courts stand in relation to the High Court of the territory they being "inferior courts", 'subordinate courts' and "courts over which a High Court has powers of superintendence", "court to which an appeal (ordinarily) lies'', and there is nothing to indicate that they all mean the same thing. The framers of the Constitution could not have used different words to mean the same thing, and I cannot agree with my brother Dwivedi that "inferior courts", "subordinate courts' and 'courts subject to the superintending jurisdiction of a High Court" mean the fame thing. The words mean different things and are used in different context's in the various Articles of the Constitution. "Interior" means lower in rank or quality, while "subordinate'' has two moaning (1) "inferior" and (2) ''subservient". There is difference between these two meanings as would be evident if one realizes that one can be inferior to another without being subservient to him. It is in the sense of "subservience" that the word is used in the Constitution, otherwise it would not have used the word "interior" at one place and "subordinate'', at another. In the Contempt : of Courts Act, the words used are "court subordinate to" and not ".subordinate eourt1'. While "subordinate court" may mean an inferior court even though it is not subservient to the High Court, "court subordinate to it" must mean a court subservient to it and not merely an inferior court.

(3.) All courts are independent and no court can claim jurisdiction or authority of any kind over ano her without statutory authority. No court can claim appellate or revisional jurisdiction without statutory authority. Similarly no court can claim that another is subservient to it without statutory authority. Subordination in the sense of inferiority does not require any statutory authority as it is left to he judged on a comparison of powers and jurisdictions of the respective courts. No law declares a court to be inferior to another; on the other hand there are provisions to be found in the principal codes of Procedure and other statutes declaring a court to be subordinate to another either generally or for particular purposes. The question of subordination in the seme of subservience arises when one court claims to exercise some authority over another and then one has to look for statutory authority in support of its claim.