Private Party Requires Advocate General's Written Consent To Se…

Justice Dwivedi clarified that under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, if a private party seeks punishment for contempt, they must first obtain written consent from the Advocate General. Without this consent, the petition cannot proceed, as it fails to meet the legal requirements for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. The Court emphasized that the mandatory consent requirement was not met by the petitioner, making the petition untenable.

The advocate-petitioner, Abhishek Krishna Gupta, had alleged that another advocate, practicing before the High Court, had misrepresented facts in a previous petition. According to the petitioner, the advocate had obtained an order from the Court directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a counter-affidavit in a matter where the investigation had already been completed, and a charge sheet had been filed. The petitioner argued that the suppression of this fact amounted to contempt and warranted legal action.

The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, stating that Advocate Gupta was not a party to the original order that was being challenged in the contempt petition. The order did not provide any liberty for third parties to file contempt proceedings. The Court held that the petition had been filed in Advocate Gupta's personal capacity, and there was no legal standing for him to initiate contempt proceedings in this case.

Drawing on established legal precedents, the Court also reiterated that contempt proceedings should not be used frivolously. The Court stated that contempt proceedings are designed to maintain the dignity and authority of the Court, and they should not be used for enforcing or executing a decree or order for which alternative legal remedies are available. The Court emphasized that contempt is a matter between the contemner and the Court, and an aggrieved party cannot insist on the Court exercising its contempt jurisdiction.

In addition to dismissing the contempt petition, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner. The amount was to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks. This cost was imposed as a penalty for filing a frivolous and untenable petition.

Despite the dismissal, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of India. Advocate Gupta expressed his intent to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgment, and the Court granted an extension of time for filing the appeal. The Court allowed the petitioner more time to appeal to the Supreme Court before the cost was to be deposited.

The Court's decision also referenced various precedents that caution against the misuse of contempt proceedings, highlighting the need for strict adherence to the Contempt of Courts Act and the legal requirement of obtaining prior consent from the Advocate General for filing such petitions.

Petitioner Versus Respondent: Abhishek Krishna Gupta VERSUS The State of Jharkhand and Anr.