Courts cannot invoke contempt powers arbitrarily: SC

While contempt of court is a matter which had to be dealt with all seriousness, the burden of proof should be upon the person who made such an allegation, it said.

“The purpose and object of initiation of a proceeding under the provisions of the Act (contempt) is only to see that the order of the court is complied with and not to necessarily proceed against persons as if they are petty criminals,” a bench of Justices S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph observed.

In this case the Calcutta High Court initiated contempt proceedings against director and another employee of the production house Three Cheer Entertainment Pvt LTD on the basis of a complaint by the Calcutta Electricity Company Ltd (CECL).

The CECL had earlier filed a Rs 20 crore defamation suit against the production house for its programme “Khoj Khabar” aired on ETV (Bangla) in which allegations of corruption in the government owned company were made.

The High Court had passed an injunction against further telecast and directed the production house to hand over the CDs relating to the programme to two receivers appointed by the court.

But the CDs were purportedly handed over to some strangers whom the production house presumed to be the receivers.

The CECL subsequently filed a contempt petition against the director and another employee Sanat Roy alleging that the CDs were not handed over to the receivers upon which the High Court initiated contempt proceedings and later convicted them.

However, it did not impose any sentence and fixed another day for hearing, but imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 ‘for the time being.’ Aggrieved by the order, the production house filed a SLP in the apex court contending that it did not commit any contempt and also stated that it did not receive any notice from the High Court asking them to hand over the CDs to the receivers.

Upholding the contemnors’ plea, the apex court said there was no record to prove whether the notice issued by the High Court for handing over the CDs was communicated to the production house.

“In our opinion, the facts and materials placed before us do not establish that there was any wilful disobedience or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant,” the bench observed.

The apex court also termed as “piecemeal” the sentence imposed by the High Court.