High Court's Contempt Jurisdiction Not Lost Just Because SC Affirmed Its Order : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a High Court can entertain a contempt petition alleging violation of its directions even if the original judgment has merged with a Supreme Court order affirming it. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not extinguish the High Court's contempt jurisdiction where the Supreme Court has not issued fresh directions.

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal filed by the United Labour Federation challenging a Madras High Court order which had dismissed its contempt petition as not maintainable.

"We are not convinced with the reasoning of the High Court that once the order passed by the High Court has merged with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the Contempt Petition would not be maintainable before the High Court, for the reason that the Contempt Jurisdiction is independent of the applicability of the Doctrine of Merger," the bench observed.

The bench noted that in this case, the Supreme Court had only affirmed the High Court's order, without issuing any additional directions. So what remained to be executed is only the High Court's directions.

"In our considered view, if the Supreme Court has not issued any fresh directions in the matter, and has merely affirmed the order passed by the High Court, what would remain to be executed is the directions issued by the High Court and it cannot be said that there is no independent existence of the order of the High Court for the purpose of invoking Contempt jurisdiction. Merely because the order has been affirmed, the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 12 or 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India does not cease to operate to punish the contemnor for disobedience of the order of the High Court."

The Court observed that holding otherwise will flood the Supreme Court with contempt petitions merely because it affirmed the HC orders.

"If it is held otherwise, Supreme Court would be flooded with Contempt Petitions because in whichever case the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal by non-speaking order, by merely affirming the order of the High Court, the parties would be driven to Supreme Court for filing Contempt Petition. Such cannot be the intent and the legal provisions cannot be used to coerce a litigant to approach the Supreme Court without resorting to filing a Contempt Petition in the High Court."

Background

The dispute arose from directions issued by the Madras High Court on April 23, 2007 in a batch of matters concerning employees seeking absorption in the Corporation of Chennai. The High Court had directed that whenever vacancies arose, the Corporation should strive to absorb identified employees in order of seniority before appointing fresh candidates.

Alleging non-compliance with this direction, the United Labour Federation filed a contempt petition before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the petition on September 28, 2022 holding that the original judgment had merged with the Supreme Court's order dated November 21, 2017 in connected civil appeals, and therefore the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the contempt plea.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to entertain the contempt petition.

The Court clarified that once leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is decided, the doctrine of merger applies and the High Court judgment merges with the Supreme Court order. The Bench rejected the appellant's argument that merger would not apply merely because the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without assigning independent reasons.

However, the Court emphasised that the applicability of the doctrine of merger does not affect the High Court's contempt jurisdiction.

It observed that where the Supreme Court merely affirms a High Court judgment without issuing fresh directions, the operative directions continue to be those issued by the High Court, and their violation can be examined by the High Court in contempt proceedings.

The Bench stated that the High Court's jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution continues to operate despite merger of the judgment.

The Court warned that holding otherwise would result in parties being forced to approach the Supreme Court for contempt proceedings in every case where an appeal had been dismissed.

The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court order and restored the contempt petition for fresh consideration on merits. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contempt allegations.

The civil appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case : United Labour Federation v Gagandeep Singh Bedi

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 208

Click here to read the judgment