DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
15th December 2021
JUDGES:
Justice Ajay Rastogi
Justice Abhay S. Oka
PARTIES:
Appellant: The Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya
Respondent: Riju Prasad Sarma&Ors.
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court of India in the present case declared that contempt jurisdiction of Courts is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
OVERVIEW
1. The petitioners in the present case invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 129 of the Indian Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the purpose of initiating contempt proceedings against respondents for breaching the directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 7th July 2015, in the case of Riju Prasad Sarma and Others V. State of Assam and Others.
2. The case made out in the contempt petitionswas as follows:
a) The petitioner was the elected Dolois(head priest) of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya. The petitioner, in the present petition, claimed that Bordeuri Samaj has been in-charge of managing affairs of the temple since time immemorial. Bordeuri Samaj comprises five families and Dolois is elected among them.
b) The petitioner claimed that in 1988, a body called KamakhyaDebutter Board was formed by the respondents and they have illegally seized the powers that were vested in the office of Dolois.
3. The breach of judgment, alleged in the petition, arises from paragraph 74 of the 2015 judgment which directed the respondents ‘to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises concerned and other properties of the Temple, if any, within four weeks.’ The court also directed the District Administration to make sure that ‘those premises are vacated by the members of the Debutter Board at the earliest and the premises and other properties of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple shall if required, be placed back within the same time in possession of the Bordeories Samaj’
4. Relying on paragraph 74, the petitioner stated four grievances:
a) Two buildings mentioned in paragraph 2(t) of the contempt petition had not been relinquished by the respondents.
b) Multiple movable properties had not been handed over to the petitioner by the respondents.
c) The Debutter Board was holding surplus cash amounting to Rs. 11 Crores which belonged to the deity and had not been paid.
d) The books of accounts on the temple were still in the possession of the respondents.
5. Since then, the Court passed multiple orders in respect to these petitions. On 18th April 2016, the Court took cognizance of the undertaking filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 that they’ll furnish all the details relating to their bank accounts concerning the case as well as details of all the funds involved. On 16th August 2017, the Court ordered the State of Assam to be made a party to the petition.
6. Thereafter, the State Government filed an affidavit against another order dated, 6th August 2019. The affidavit mentioned that the State is inclined to carry out a preliminary investigation to assess how much surplus money was disputed. Analyzing the report filed by the State, the Court further passed an order on 13th January 2020. The report revealed that a sum of Rs.7,62,03,498 had been withdrawn in cash by the Kamakhya Debutter Board. The court stated that ‘the facts of the report, prima facie, establish misappropriation of funds’ and suggested the State should lodge a criminal complaint in the matter of misappropriation of funds by the respondents and conduct a proper inquiry.
7. The counsel for the petitioners referred to the report filed by the State and stated that the ‘respondents never raised any objection to the report’. He further stated that the respondents had accepted the ‘correctness’ of the report and were never called in question even once by them. Therefore, in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 73, the said respondents were ‘under an obligation to pay the said amount to the Temple.’
8. The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there was no mention in the 2015 judgment of any amount that was needed to be paid by the respondents. Even paragraph 73 did not contain any such direction. The counsel further submitted that the respondents had already relinquished possession of all the immovable property of the temple and there was no dispute with the 2015 judgment. Hence, an action of contempt could not be initiated against the respondents.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
Article 129- The Supreme Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners were eligible to receive compensation of Rs.7,62,03,498 from the respondents?
2. Whether the respondents were liable for contempt of Court?
JUDGEMENT
1. The Court accepted the reasoning of the counsel for respondents, stating that there was ‘no mention of any discussion in 2015 judgment about the liability of respondents to pay a specific amount’. The Court further noted that even in the order of 31st January 2020, where the Court recorded the report filed by the State alleging misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board, there was no mention of any direction ‘to pay the money that has been allegedly misappropriated’. The Court noted that the said report wasn’t ‘conclusive’ and only the prima facie observation of the report was expressed in the order.
2. Commenting on the arguments made by the counsel for petitioners, the Court noted that ‘no opportunity was provided to the respondents to file any objections to the report.’The Court also stated the findings of the said report were not conclusive and the exact extent of liability of the respondents was never adjudicated.
3. In the end, the Court held that no case can be made under Article 129 of the Indian Constitution read with Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Commenting on the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, the Court stated that ‘contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.’ Consequently, all the petitions along with any standing applications were dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The Court in the present case discussed the material circumstances of the case and made perusal of its previous orders to conclude that petitioners had misinterpreted the previous orders of the Court, and the reasoning provided by the petitioners was not enough to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents as contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
