Contempt Jurisdiction Must Be Exercised Sparingly: SC Rules

• The Hon’ble SC on 15 December, 2021 in The Bordeuri Samaj Of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya vs. Riju Prasad and Ors. said that “contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection”.
• The Supreme Court on 7 July,2015, concurring with the decision of the Gauhati HC by which it had ordered the administration of the temple to the Bordeuri Samaj consisting of five main families of priests who had run the temple since time immemorial. But in 1998, a Kamakhya Debutter Board which took control of the shrine.
• The contempt case thus arose out of the non compliance of the 2015 judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Riju Prasad Sarma and Ors vs. State of Assam and Ors).
• In this case it was contended that the right to manage the affairs of the Kamakhaya Temple is vested in the Bordeuri Samaj since time immemorial. It has also been recognised without dispute. But, in the year 1998, a body named Kamakhya Debutter Board was formed and this Board had illegally encroached upon the powers of the Dolois (representative of the members of the Bordeuri Samaj).
• The breach that was alleged has arisen out of the order of the Hon’ble SC given in the 2015 judgement which stated the following-

“Since the Debutter Board was occupying some part of the Temple on account of the interim orders of this court, those orders now stand vacated. The District Administration is directed to ensure that those premises are vacated by the members of the Debutter Board at the earliest and in any case within 4 weeks. The premises and other properties are to be placed back into the possession of the Bordeories Samaj through the last elected Dolois against receipts which shall be retained in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Gauhati”.

• The various grievances in the contempt petition are-

a) That the possession of the immovable properties have not yet been handed over to the Bordeuri Samaj.
b) That the various movable properties of the Temple have also not been handed over.
c) That the Debutter board was holding onto surplus cash of not less than Rs. Eleven Crores which belonged to the Deity, has not been paid.
d) The books of account of the Temple have not been handed over to the petitioner.

• On 31 January, 2020 it was observed by a bench headed by Justice Nariman that “the withdrawal of Rs.7,62,03,498 by the Kamakhya Debuttor Board was in violation of the Supreme Court’s order without taking approval from the Deputy Commissioner being cleverly split into amounts of Rs.50,000 so as to give the impression that the order has been complied with.” The bench directed that it would be proper if a criminal case is lodged and a proper investigation is conducted.
• In the instant case , the bench of Justice Rastogi and Justice Oka said “ Perusal of the judgement shows that there is no discussion therein about the liability of the respondents 1 to 4 to pay any specific amount”. The court further held that “perusal of the order dated 31st January 2020 shows that there was no opportunity granted to the parties to file any objections to the report. It cannot be said that since the respondents did not object to the report, they have accepted the liability to pay the amount of Rs.7,62,03,498. Moreover, the observations cannot be treated as concluded findings. In our view, no case is made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act,1971.”

And now, a question for our Judiciary Aspirants:

Which Article of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to punish for it’s contempt?