Appeal Not Maintainable Against Order Closing Contempt Case On Recording Compliance: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. In doing so, the Court held that an order closing contempt proceedings after recording compliance with...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
In doing so, the Court held that an order closing contempt proceedings after recording compliance with the writ court's directions cannot be challenged under Section 19 of the Act.
For context, Section 19 states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt—
(a)where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:
“A bare perusal of Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971, shows that the appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Clause (a) provides that where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, appeal lies to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court.
The expression used in Section 19(1) of the Act,1971 is in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, which is most relevant in determining the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Act...
The order under challenge is not one imposing punishment upon the respondents in the contempt proceedings. It is an order closing the contempt case recording that the orders passed in writ petition No.937 of 2023 dated 10.07.2024-have been complied with. We are of the considered view that an appeal would not lie under Section 19(1)(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the order under challenge"
The contempt proceedings arose from an allegation that the respondents had disobeyed the Single Judge's direction to include the petitioners' temporary service for pensionary benefits and gratuity. The contempt case was subsequently closed after the Single Judge recorded compliance with the writ court's directions.
The Registry objected to the maintainability of the appeal, noting that the respondents had neither been found guilty nor punished for contempt. The appellants contended that Section 19 does not require the impugned order to contain a finding of guilt or imposition of punishment.
The appellants contended that Section 19 does not require the impugned order to contain a finding of guilt or imposition of punishment and that an appeal would lie from any order or decision passed in exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
The High Court, however, noted that the order under challenge was not one imposing punishment upon the respondents, but an order closing the contempt case after recording compliance with the directions issued in the writ petition.
The Court accordingly sustained the office objection and held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The appellants thereafter submitted that the matter could be pursued under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Court observed that whether the order constitutes a “judgment” appealable under Clause 15 would depend upon its nature and could be considered if such an appeal is filed.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the office objections and granted liberty to the appellants to file an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent or convert the contempt appeal into one under the said provision.
Case Title: Kasi Raju, S/o Kava Raju (Died) & 19 Others v. Arun Kumar & Another
Case No.: Contempt Appeal (SR) No. 4482 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao