Civil Contempt Jurisdiction Intended To Ensure Compliance With Orders, Not To Modify Earlier Orders: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court, while explaining the scope of civil contempt jurisdiction, stated that it is intended to ensure compliance with judicial orders and not to supplement or modify earlier judicial orders. The Court emphasised that contempt proceedings cannot be used for the adjudication of new issues and for the issuance of fresh directions that are not contained in the judgement.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining whether there is wilful disobedience of a clear and self-evident order. Court stated, “the legal position is settled that civil contempt jurisdiction is meant to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and maintain the dignity of the Court. This jurisdiction is not be executed to supplement or modify earlier judicial decisions. In contempt jurisdiction Courts have to limit the determination to whether there has been willful disobedience to a self-evident order. It is not permissible to travel beyond the original judgment or enter into issues that were not previously adjudicated. Directions that are not contained in the judgment cannot be enforced through contempt proceedings. If an order is ambiguous, seeking clarification through review or appeal is the appropriate remedy. Thus, if a substantive relief that alters the original order or a new order is executed in civil contempt, proceedings will be beyond jurisdiction.”In the appeal, the Kerala Electricity Board challenged the order issued by the single judge in a civil contempt case. The writ petition was filed by a company that entered into a contract with the KSEB to supply PSC poles, with a price variation clause allowing adjustments if component costs varied by 10%. KSEB stated that the price variation would apply prospectively from a certain date, which was challenged by the company in the writ petition. The Single judge directed KSEB to implement the price variation clause, however, KSEB did not comply with the order and a contempt petition was filed. Several orders were passed in the contempt petition, and the KSEB was ordered to pay the price variation from the date of inception of the contract. The appeal was filed by KSEB, stating that the order in the writ petition was complied with and the single judge ought not to have made fresh adjudications in the contempt petition. The Court, relying upon Apex Court decisions in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002), V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju held that new orders or directions (2004) cannot be passed in contempt jurisdiction. Relying upon Senthur v T.N. Public Service Commission (2022), it was stated issuance of supplementary or incidental directions in contempt jurisdiction which were not part of the original judgment is also impermissible. Further, it was stated that when civil contempt is alleged, either the Court will discharge the proceedings or proceed to punish for contempt. The Court clarified that if there is any lacunae in the original order, that would be resolved through review jurisdiction and not in the contempt jurisdiction. Court stated, “The contempt jurisdiction is vested with the Court to uphold its majesty and dignity. It is a special jurisdiction and carries certain limitations in its ambit. One of the limitations is that the Court will not pass new orders in continuation of the earlier lis between the parties on merits assuming continuous review or original jurisdiction. When the civil contempt alleged is of willful disobedience of the order of the Court, the Court will either discharge the proceedings or proceed to punish for contempt. If there is any doubt or lacuna in the original order, it is a matter of review jurisdiction and not contempt jurisdiction.”In the facts, the Court noted that the contempt petition was not closed. I thus set aside the order issued by the single judge in the contempt jurisdiction that ordered the payment of price variation. The Court also directed the single judge to decide upon the issues in the contempt petition, adhering to the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. As such, the appeal was disposed of. Counsel for Appellants: Senior Advocate Raju Joseph, Advocate Joseph JoseCounsel for Respondents: Advocates Philip T.Varghese, Thomas T.Varghese, Achu Subha AbrahamCase Title: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co. Case No: WA NO. 284 OF 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147Click here to Read/Download Order

Civil Contempt Jurisdiction Intended To Ensure Compliance With Orders, Not To Modify Earlier Orders: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

Tags