Where Orders (Interim or Final) / decrees passed by the “Court” or undertakings given to the Court are willfully disregarded / disobeyed / breached by any person, the aggrieved may maintain a legal action against the said person, for having committed contempt of the Court; or where any person makes derogatory remarks against the Court of law or against any Judge, or who interferes in the flow of administration of justice in any legal proceedings, the said person may said to have committed contempt of the Court.
1. The legal process in the Court of law is initiated by the presentation / institution of a Case, whether in the form of a Suit, Petition, Application etc, in the competent court of jurisdiction.
2. Every litigation presupposes the accrual of “cause of action”, that is to say, reason for initiating legal action in the Court of law.
3. Accrual of cause of action implies and presupposes infringement of litigant’s some statutory right / fundamental right / equitable right / contractual right / or any other right recognized under the statutes or customs.
4. In order to commence a legal action, the person must have some real grievance, which is the foundation of any legal action. For having right to move the court of law, the right sought to be enforced should have already come into existence, and there should be an infringement of it, or at least a serious and imminent threat exist of its infringement.
5. The contempt of the Court implies disregarding the Authority of the Court. The law of the land recognizes two kinds of contempt, civil contempt and criminal contempt.
6. Civil contempt implies wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
7. Criminal contempt includes acts such as the publication (whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes, or lowers the authority of any court; or acts which interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or acts which interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice in any manner. However, certain acts are excluded from the purview of criminal contempt, such as, fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding; fair criticism of judicial act; Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate court in good faith.
8. If orders are disobeyed, the effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the court, by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. A purpose of the Court's power to make findings of contempt is to ensure the orders of the Court are obeyed.
9. In the case of Murray & Co. vs Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr, 2000, the Apex Court observed to say that the right to inflict punishment for contempt of Court in terms of the Act of 1971 on to the Law Courts has been for the purposes of ensuring the rule of law and orderly administration of justice. This is a special Jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to majesty of law. Litigant public ought to be extremely careful and cautious in the matter of making statements before Courts of Law.
10. Even judges of Subordinate Courts are subject to contempt of the Court if they knowingly do not follow the orders / judgments / law laid down by the High Court or Supreme Court (Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971). The Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court are not subject to Contempt proceedings.
11. In the case of Legrand (India) Private Limited Versus Union Of India  the Bombay High Court have held that the Public authorities / any other persons may be held guilty of contempt of the Court, if, in the regular discharge of their duties, they knowingly disregard the law laid down by the said Court.
12. In the case of Bineet Kumar Singh  the Apex Court observed to say that a false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Muthu Karuppan versus Parithi  observed as – The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities; equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt proceeding being quasi criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in such proceedings.
14. The remarkable observations made by Punjab & Haryaya High Court in the case of Court On Its Own Motion Versus Ram Piara Comrade  deserves mention here. The offence of contempt is primarily against the organized society since no one can be permitted to do acts or publish writings when they are calculated in the words of Lord Russel, C. J., in R V/s. Gray, (1900) 2 Q-B 36 to bring a Court or Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court. A contemnor is not punished out of any personal consideration for the Judge but as stated in ex parte Whitmore, 9 Utah 441, “the power is exercised by the Court as a representative in this respect of the people - the ultimate sovereigns - and in their interest and in their good. The maintenance of the authority of the judiciary is indispensable to the stability of Government”. The Courts are the bulwark of the liberty and rights of the people in a democratic Constitution and all unwarranted and unjustified attacks tending to undermine their prestige and dignity must, therefore, be taken serious notice of as criminal acts so that confidence of the people in the administration of justice is not impaired.
15. Coming to deliverance and dispensation of justice, the Courts / Tribunals, in the exercise of adjudicating and declaring rights and obligation of respective parties which are before it, formulate its decision by employing laws of the land, the principle of equity, and customs & usages.
16. The principles of natural justice forms the corner stone of every judicial decision and it postulate that both the litigating parties must have equal and sufficient opportunity to deal with the allegations made against them.
17. A Judicial decision must be a self contained document from which it should appear as to what the facts of the case were and what was the controversy, which was tried to be settled by the Court / Tribunal.
18. The process of reasoning by which Court came to a particular conclusion and decreed or dismissed the case, should clearly be reflected in the decision. 19. The decision should be on the basis of evidence on record and in accordance with law.
20. The fate of Justice is tied to the thread of reason: Reasoned decisions are inescapable in the entire scheme of administration of Justice, as explained decision breathes life into court order. Reasons disclose how the mind was applied to the subject matter and reveals a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached.
Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the judicial authority has applied its mind to the facts on record. The reasons employed not only be logical / conceivable but which will also deal with the substantial points which have been raised.
An unreasoned Order presupposes the non consideration of evidences and submissions on record made by the Party therein and the opportunity of affording due hearing would be rendered meaningless and empty formality and thus in essence occasion the frustration of principles of natural justice for the prejudiced party.
The giving of satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man’s sense of justice. Reasoned decisions are vital for the purpose of showing that one is receiving justice.
21. Having said all this, and to say that reasons must be given for decisions, what we really expect from the judicial authority.
Reasons are appreciation of such facts and evidences which are on record, and from which the judicial authorities are entitled to draw inferences and results.
Then comes the question, what is appreciation of facts and evidences.
Appreciation of facts and evidences is, drawing natural and logical inferences, drawing natural and logical results, which necessarily flow from those facts and evidences [the facts would mean those facts which are self evident or are admitted, or facts which are reasonably proved, disproved or not proved].
Appreciation of facts and evidence is an exercise wherein the proved existence of certain facts, provokes or persuades the decision maker to reach a certain conclusion.
And to put it further straight, Reasons are those statements, whereby the decision maker will tell you, WHY your submissions to claim certain reliefs, or WHY your submissions to deny reliefs claimed, are meritorious or if are meritless; or to say, the decision maker will tell you, WHY you are entitled to the reliefs or WHY you are not entitled to the reliefs, claimed or prayed for.
22. I am hasten to add here the valuable observations of the Apex court in the case of State Of Uttaranchal Versus Sunil Kumar Vaish .
Para 18: Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.
Para 19: Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
No adverse Order if No adverse findings
1. It is typical for Courts and Judges, whilst passing Orders and decisions, (to commit basic and elementary mistakes, and most of the times consciously) outright overlooking some of the very material facts and evidences / submissions / Judgments cited, by the losing Party; and drive themselves to irrelevant consideration of facts.
2. Before discussing the aforesaid expression “No adverse Order if No adverse findings”, let us first broadly look at the decision making process.
3. Broadly, the decision making is a process wherein, having regard to the Reliefs claimed, the presiding Judge – (a) examine the (legality) of facts alleged, (b) examine the (legality) of stand of the adversary, (c) examine the materials and the evidences which are placed before him in support of the facts alleged by both the sides; (d) would record his reasoned finding (prima facie or conclusive) as to the existence or the non existence of the facts alleged.
4. The process of recording finding of facts is, having regard to the applicable laws and precedents, testing of facts and evidences, and drawing natural, logical and legal inferences and outcomes, which necessarily flows from those facts and evidences [the facts would mean those facts which are self evident or are admitted, or facts which are reasonably proved, disproved or not proved]. Appreciation of facts and evidence is also an exercise wherein the existence of certain facts and evidence, provokes or persuades the decision maker to reach a certain conclusion.
5. Once findings as to facts are arrived at, the decision follows, either granting the reliefs claimed for, or the denial of.
6. However, what is witnessed in many Orders of the Courts is – either (a) In the process of finding of facts, findings on significant material fact are not recorded at all, by overlooking all the materials and evidences and submissions of the losing party, which are placed on record; the evidences and submissions, which had a direct bearing on the decision of the Court; or (b) whilst recording finding as to material fact, some of the material facts agitated / evidences / submissions / Judgments cited are not dealt with. The situation (a) mainly occurs in discretionary jurisdiction Orders/ Interim /Ad-Interim Orders / and Orders passed at Appellate stage; and situation (b) occurs in Orders passed in original proceedings. [Material facts would mean such facts which naturally arises in the nature of legal proceeding and nature of reliefs claimed]
7. In wealth of judgments, the Apex Court and High Courts have insisted upon recording of reasons whilst arriving at findings of facts and law. In a case (AIR 2011 SCW 5486) before it, the Apex Court have observed to say that Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning, on law and facts.
8. Therefore, IF it is contempt of the Court, if reasoned findings are not recorded, then it is regressive and aggravated contempt, to not to record findings at all.
9. Can we really compel the Courts to record finding of fact in their decisions? At least the Apex Court in a case before it [(2006) 9 SCC 222], have said Yes. The Apex Court have held that before subjecting a party to the adverse decision, adverse findings must be recorded against it.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case, have set aside the Order of the High Court on the grounds that, the High Court, before directing the Defendants to “clear the encroachment”, should have recorded the findings that “Defendants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the trial court”.
It was a case where the Defendant in a Suit gave undertaking to the trial Court that Defendants will not interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff’s land. The Suit was disposed of on the basis of above undertaking. Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved Execution Application under O.21 R.32 before the trial Court alleging that Defendants have constructed some structure on the Suit land. The trial Court dismissed said Execution Application. The Plaintiff challenged trial Court’s Order before High Court. The High Court directed the Defendants to clear the encroachment effected by them on the suit land. In this backdrop, the Apex Court set aside the Order of the High Court on the grounds that, the High Court, before directing the Defendants to “clear the encroachment”, should have recorded the findings that “Defendants had entered upon the suit land and put up construction subsequent to the undertaking given to the trial court”.
10. The Illustration: To illustrate the proposition of “Findings”, agitated hereinabove, therefore, in a Writ Petition, the High Court, before refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction on the grounds of availability of alternate remedy, and depending upon the nature of facts alleged, must record a prima facie finding that, having regard to the facts on record, (a) fundamental rights of the Petitioners are not infringed; and / or (b) principles of natural justice have not been infringed; or (c) the Authority / Subordinate court / Tribunals have acted within their respective jurisdiction. This is because, there are ample judgments of Apex Court, wherein it is held that, on the existence of any of the aforesaid grounds in the case, notwithstanding availability of alternative remedy, the High Courts must exercise their Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [AIR 1970 SC 645; AIR 2010 SCW 7184; AIR 1999 SC 22; AIR 2012 SCW 616; AIR 2003 SC 2120; AIR 2005 SC 3936; AIR 1958 SC 86 (Constitution Bench Judg); (2011) 5 SCC 697; AIR 1969 SC 556; (2015) 6 All MR 35 (BHC)]
Similarly, in an Application for Anticipatory Bail, the Session Judge / High Court, before rejecting Anticipatory Bail must record a prima facie finding that, having regard to the facts on record, (a) the Applicant is not cooperating in the investigation; (b) custodial interrogation of the Accused is essential; or (c) There is a apprehension of tampering of the witness by the Applicant; or (d) There is a possibility of the Applicant to flee from justice; or that there is a possibility of the Accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
11. The necessity of recording of finding on material facts, would take away the arbitrary and whimsical discretion of the Courts, for, they have to record findings, based on facts and evidences which are explicitly placed on record. And when the facts / evidence are seen large, the Courts may abstain from recording illogical findings, which are contrary to facts / evidence placed on record, and seen large.
This is how the captioned proposition should come into play, that is, “No adverse Order if No adverse findings”.
The concentrated view which emerges runs to the effect that every decision / Order of the court, be interim or final, must be based on findings of facts recorded by it, whether prima facie or conclusive, on such facts which naturally arises in the nature of legal proceeding and nature of reliefs claimed.
The User may fill up the requisite details in the table below and they would be furnished at their email address the relevant Template.