The Karnataka High Court has held that a criminal contempt petition filed by a private party, without obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General of India, cannot proceed as a regular contempt petition, but may be treated as “information” and be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of whether any suo motu action should be initiated. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214]

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was dealing with a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against four accused persons alleging deliberate and wilful disobedience of a High Court order.

The company sought initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the accused, as well as to convict and sentence them to imprisonment.

An application was filed seeking recall of an earlier order passed in February that had overruled the office objection raised on maintainability of the petition.

The question before the Court was whether the Criminal Contempt of Court case filed seeking to take action against an alleged contemnor without the consent of the Advocate General is maintainable?

The accused had challenged maintainability of the proceedings, arguing that prior written consent of the Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act was mandatory before a private individual could initiate criminal contempt proceedings.

On the other hand, the petitioner argued that the petition merely supplied information to the Court and invoked the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 215.

It was also submitted that the Court could independently take suo motu cognizance based on information placed before it and thus, Advocate General's consent was not necessary.

Allowing the plea, the Court recalled the order which had overruled the office objections raised on maintainability of the petition.

“The Registry shall treat this petition as 'information' under Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court proceedings) Rules, 1981, and shall place the same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders,” the Court ordered.

While doing so, the Bench noted that the complainant had filed the complaint under Section of 15 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 3 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court proceedings) Rules, 1981, which should not be justified as a petition and should not be placed for admission on the judicial side.

The Bench added that such a plea by a private party, sans AG's consent, should be placed before the Chief Justice for orders and that it is the Chief Justice who may decide, either by himself or in consultation with the other Judges of the High Court, whether to take any cognizance of the information.

Further, the Bench noted that even though written consent of the Advocate General would be taken note of for entertaining a petition under the relevant provision, the same does not, in any manner, deprive the complainant of his remedy as he can come before the Court requesting the Court to take suo motu action.

“However, the procedure as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.N. Duda (supra) has to be followed as there cannot be a numbering of the information given before this Court as a Contempt of Court Case (Criminal) and the issuance of notice to the accused without following such procedure,” the Bench said while closing the contempt plea.

Counsel for Complainant: ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE

Counsel for Respondents: KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE, FOR A-1 TO A3; RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY P., ADVOCATE, FOR A-4

Title: NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS

Click here to read order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214