[Contempt] Democratic Fabric Of Society Will Suffer If Respect For Judiciary Is Undermined: Delhi High Court

Observing that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, the Delhi High Court has said that the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed thus:

"The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined."

The Court was dealing with a contempt plea filed for the alleged willful violation of the two orders passed by the High Court.

The facts of the matter are that being aggrieved by the non-consideration of her application for putting up a boundary wall to secure her property in terms of the revenue land records, the Petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a writ plea. As proper police protection had not been granted to the Petitioner, she had moved an application, by way of which the Court directed the Police to grant protection to the Petitioner at the time of construction of the boundary wall.

It was thus stated that the boundary wall was constructed on 24.12.2020, and in terms of the orders dated 15.10.2020 and 21.12.2020, an undertaking was given by the Petitioner on 23.12.2020 that in case it was found that the boundary wall had not been constructed in terms of the orders or if the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, so ordered, the Petitioner would demolish the boundary wall.

Furthermore , it was stated that on 03.01.2022, the Respondent No.1, with the aid of certain persons, arrived at the premises and demolished the boundary wall constructed by the Petitioner.

It was stated that the Petitioner had then lodged an FIR against the Respondent No.1 for offences under sec. 448 and 511 of IPC, and also approached High Court by filing the contempt petition.

Thereafter, on 07.03.2022, the Court had found that the Petitioner was guilty of contempt of Court and that the apology tendered by the Respondent No.1 Contemnor was rejected on the ground that the manner in which the demolition was done with the help of a JCB excavator machine, portrayed that the demolition was a willful and deliberate act on the part of the Respondent No.1 to flout the Court orders.

"The manner in which the demolition took place, i.e. by using a JCB excavator and with the aid of other people, also indicate that the Respondent No.1/Contemnor harboured the intention to terrorize the Petitioner. This demonstrates that the Respondent No.1/Contemnor possess scant regard towards the orders of the Court, and has undermined the dignity of the Court and outraged the majesty of law," the Court observed.

It added that the action of the Respondent No.1 Contemnor could not be said to be an outcome of confusion regarding the site where the boundary wall was constructed, especially when the matter was still under consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue.

"In any event, the Petitioner had given an undertaking that in case it was found that the boundary wall is not constructed in terms of the orders of this Court or if the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, so orders, the Petitioner would demolish the boundary wall," it said.

Thus, in view the contumacious conduct of the Respondent No.1 Contemnor, the Court sentenced him to undergo 45 days of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000.

The Court directed the Contemnor to be taken in custody forthwith.

Case Title: NIRMAL JINDAL v. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 446

Click Here To Read/Download Order