Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines On Civil Imprisonment For Wilful Disobedience Of Judicial Orders

The Karnataka High Court recently issued a set of guidelines to be followed by the trial courts while ordering civil imprisonment to an accused for wilful disobedience of court orders under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said,“The underlying philosophy of the provision is curative and to enforce the compliance of the Court order rather than to punish the wrongdoer. At the same time, it is equally important that any party to the litigation should not carry the impression that one who violates the interim order is entitled to a long rope. The provision also has a very important role to play in upholding the rule of law, the majesty of the Court, and ensuring the credibility of the Court order.” It added “Needless to say, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, liberty is a cherished fundamental right. While ordering civil imprisonment, the court should bear in mind the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, it does not mean that the punishment by way of civil imprisonment is ruled out and can be ordered only after exhausting the option of attachment and sale of the property.” Noting that the provision XXXIX Rule 2A (1) of the Code, provides for (a) attachment of the property of the wrongdoer, (b) civil imprisonment not exceeding three months, the bench said “The discretion lies with the Court to impose either of the two punishments as well. However, the discretion is not absolute or unfettered. Every wide power conferred on the Courts has inherent limitations and inbuilt checks and balance mechanisms. Likewise, the discretion under Order XXXIX Rule 2A has its inherent limitations as the power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.” Then taking into account the object of the provision the bench held “An order directing civil imprisonment should not be passed as a matter of course.” Following which it issued the non-exhaustive but illustrative guidelines to be followed by courts while ordering civil imprisonment:(a) the nature/gravity of the disobedience or breach, and the manner in which order is violated.(b) the loss caused to the party on account of disobedience or breach.(c) whether the damage caused can be restored in some way or the other or is something irreversible.(d) circumstances under which the breach or disobedience is committed.(e) whether the breach or disobedience complained is an isolated act or it is a continuous act.(f) previous history, if any, where the contemnor is held guilty of breach or disobedience of the Court order. (g) whether the case calls for a situation where the message is to be sent, by passing an order of civil imprisonment, that willful breach or disobedience of the Court order will be viewed seriously.(h) and more importantly, the Court has to consider whether civil imprisonment is an effective way to prevent a further breach.(i) the timing of the apology, if any, tendered by the contemnor, the tenor and tone of the language used in the affidavit tendering the apology.(j) the compliance, if any, made to undo the disobedience or breach complained.(k) to an extent, the educational qualifications/ positions of the contemnor and whether the acts committed by the contemnor make mockery of the Court order. The court issued the guidelines while partly allowing the appeal filed by T Sudhakar Pai, Mohammed Samiulla and Dr Ritu Chauhan who had challenged a District court order finding the appellants guilty of disobedience of the order of temporary injunction. District court had then sentenced Pai to undergo civil imprisonment for three months and pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the plaintiffs. Samiulla and Chauhan were sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for one month and were liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000, to each of the plaintiffs. The ex-parte interim order was passed on the suit filed by M/s Manipal Academy of Higher Education and others, seeking to restrain Pai and others from using several trade names/trademarks. Appellants were restricted from using trade names/trademarks viz., MAHE and MANIPAL GROUPS.District court on considering the records held that the appellants were aware of the ex parte Court order. While the High Court upheld the order convicting the accused but reduced the imprisonment of three months imposed on Pai to 15 days and set aside the imprisonment handed down to other two appellants as they were not part of the decision making process in the company. The next day, court stayed for three weeks the sentence imposed on Pai to allow him to appeal before the Supreme Court, subject to him submitting an undertaking that he shall not travel abroad/leave the country for a period of three weeks. Further the court clarified that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the code does not empower the Court to award compensation by...

Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines On Civil Imprisonment For Wilful Disobedience Of Judicial Orders

Mustafa Plumber

Tags