Introduction:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently addressed a significant procedural issue concerning the jurisdiction of Division Benches in Letters Patent Appeals (LPA) vis-a-vis proceedings before Single Judges’ contempt courts. The matter arose in the case involving Jasbir Singh and others versus Shri A.K. Singh and others, where the Court was called upon to delineate the boundaries of authority between the Division Bench and the Single Judge, especially in the context of contempt proceedings.

Arguments Presented by Both Sides:

Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner, contended that the Division Bench had overstepped its jurisdiction by staying proceedings before the Single Judge’s contempt court. He argued that such orders disrupt the procedural hierarchy and undermine the authority of the Single Judge. The petitioner emphasized that the contempt court derives its power directly from the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, thus making it independent of the Division Bench’s interventions.

Malik further highlighted that allowing Division Benches to stay contempt proceedings would lead to increased pendency of cases and encourage litigants to seek similar relief, thereby clogging the judicial system. He insisted that the primary responsibility of the contempt court is to ensure compliance with judicial orders, and any interference by the Division Bench would be detrimental to this fundamental duty.

The respondents, represented by their counsel, argued that the Division Bench possesses inherent powers to stay any proceeding that might lead to judicial overreach or miscarriage of justice. They contended that in certain circumstances, it might be necessary for the Division Bench to intervene in contempt proceedings to prevent injustice or to maintain judicial discipline.

The respondents also pointed to previous instances where Division Benches had issued stay orders on contempt proceedings, arguing that these precedents support their stance. They maintained that the Division Bench’s intervention was justified and necessary to prevent possible errors in judgment by the Single Judge.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, delivering the judgement, clarified that the Division Bench lacks jurisdiction to stay proceedings before a Single Judge’s contempt court while hearing an LPA. He stated that any such order issued by a Division Bench should be considered non-est, meaning it is invalid and has no legal effect.

Justice Sehrawat emphasized that the contempt court operates independently and derives its authority from the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act. He referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and another’ to underline that in an intra-court appeal, the Single Bench is not subordinate to the Division Bench. Consequently, the Division Bench cannot issue orders that impede the functioning of the contempt court.

The Court pointed out that the primary role of the contempt court is to ensure compliance with judicial orders. If a Division Bench were to stay contempt proceedings without staying the operation of the underlying order, it would lead to continued non-compliance and undermine the authority of the judicial system.

Justice Sehrawat highlighted that while the Division Bench has the power to stay the operation of a Single Judge’s order in an appropriate case, it does not have the authority to interfere with the proceedings of the contempt court. He stressed that such interference would be an overreach of jurisdiction and contrary to the principles established by the Supreme Court.

The judgement also addressed the issue of increasing pendency of contempt petitions due to repeated orders by Division Benches staying such proceedings. The Court noted that this practice results in unnecessary delays and burdens the judicial system. Therefore, it is imperative to establish clear boundaries to prevent such procedural complications.