B KRISHNA REDDY Vs. PUSHPA SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression 'contempt of court' may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries, 1980 3 SCC 311; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu, 2003 1 SCC 644). Every one, howsoever high he may be, is bound to implement orders of Court. Those who disregard Court's orders do so at their own peril for no one is above the law. (Court on its own motion v. N.S. Kanwar, 1995 CrLJ 1261 (Punjab & Haryana HC)).

(2.) Disobedience of an order of Court, whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex-parte or upon hearing both parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt, if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into disrespect or disregard, (Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. K. Appa Rao,1967 1 AnWR 129), for it strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. (Director of Education, Uttaranchal v. Ved Prakash Joshi, 2005 6 SCC 98; Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV, 2006 1 SCC 613; Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2004 7 SCC 261). Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of an effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. (Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, 1999 7 SCC 569). Once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without reservation. The only remedy available to a party, who suffers an order, is to challenge it in accordance with law. The order cannot be rendered ineffective by not complying with the directions on specious pleas as it would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. (Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, 2007 7 SCC 689 ; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai, 2008 14 SCC 561) .

(3.) "Contempt of Court" is an unfortunate and misleading phrase. It suggests that it exists to protect the dignity of the judges. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The power exists to ensure that justice shall be done. The public at large, no less the individual litigant, have an interest, and a very real interest, in justice being effectively administered. Unless it is so administered the rights, and indeed the liberty, of the individual shall perish. (Jennison v. Baker, 1972 1 AllER 997) . The Contempt of Courts Act secures confidence of the people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent court is clear and unambiguous, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of court. There can be no laxity, as otherwise court orders would be the subject of mockery. (Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, 2002 4 SCC 21); Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai, (2008) 14 SCC 561) .