Vicarious Liability Can't Be Applied To Contempt Case

Key Takeaways

• explains civil contempt means willful disobedience of a decision of the Court, and so, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience.
• Liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge.
• vicarious liability is the responsibility an employer resulting from the actions of an employee

Background

• An appeal was filed against the order of the Gauhati High Court finding the appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.
• The apex court, while setting aside the order of the high court, said it is the specific case of the appellants that they did not violate the directives of the court.

Observations

• The SC observed that Civil contempt means willful disobedience of a decision of the court and merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, liability cannot be fastened on a higher official
• "We are dealing with civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the 'willful' disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order.
• "Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious, and intentional act. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature," the bench said.
• In law, vicarious liability is the responsibility an employer resulting from the actions of an employee.

Questions

• Do you agree with this judgement?
• What is your understanding of civil contempt