Supreme Court Defines Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction, Emphasizing It Can't Be Used to Enforce Orders
In the case of Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs vs. P. Ravikumar, the Supreme Court ruled that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to enforce a decree or implement an order unless there is clear evidence of wilful disobedience. The Court emphasized that its focus should be limited to the explicit directions in the judgment or order.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar stated that to punish for contempt, the disobedience must be intentional, deliberate, and conscious, excluding accidental or genuine inability to comply. If multiple interpretations are possible, and the action is not contumacious, contempt proceedings are not maintainable.
The judgment also clarified that contempt cannot be used as a tool for decree enforcement when alternative remedies exist. The Court must restrict its inquiry to the specific directions outlined in the judgment and avoid going beyond them. It also underlined that the disobedience must be deliberate, not accidental or negligent, for contempt to be actionable.
The Court further noted that a theoretical implementation of an order does not constitute compliance. If there are doubts or ambiguities, parties should seek clarification from the original court instead of resorting to contempt proceedings. The Court emphasized that authorities should not claim financial burdens as an excuse for non-compliance unless the order is absolutely impossible to execute. If such issues arise, authorities can seek appropriate orders from the Court.