Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 14 October 2026
- Bench
- Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(b), 12, 19; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 — Chapter VIII Rule 5; Constitution of India — Articles 14, 21, 39A, 136, 215, 226
Appeal disposed of: the appellant may file a Special Appeal within a fortnight, to be decided on merits; the contempt petition stays for two months; the reference on Ram Kishan Fauji remains pending before the Chief Justice (paras 54-57).
Key holdings
- An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act lies only against an order punishing for contempt (para 34).
- An intra-court appeal lies against contempt orders that are judgments, including one rejecting a compliance order and requiring fresh compliance (para 33).
- Civil contempt is quasi-criminal but not criminal jurisdiction, so the Rule 5 bar on Special Appeals in criminal jurisdiction does not apply (paras 37-38).
- Ram Kishan Fauji is confined to writs with a criminal lis and is referred to a larger Bench on whether it correctly reads the Letters Patent (paras 41, 48, 52).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda 2006 (5) SCC 399
An order in contempt proceedings deciding the merits of the dispute is not passed in the jurisdiction to punish and is open to an intra-court appeal where the rules permit; interlocutory orders in categories (i)-(iii) of its para 15 are judgments.
- Ajay Kumar Bhalla v. Prakash Kumar Dixit 2024 (12) SCC 159
Three-Judge Bench approving Chunilal Nanda: a finding of contempt is not appealable at that stage, but a direction on substantive rights is; it did not advance the appellant's case.
- Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana (2017) 5 SCC 533
Its holding that a writ with a criminal lis is criminal jurisdiction barring an intra-court appeal is confined to its context and cannot be applied to contempt; its correctness is doubted and referred to a larger Bench.
View all precedents (23)
- S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas AIR 1965 SC 1818
Constitution Bench: proceedings for contempt of court may be neither civil nor criminal.
- P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258
Whether a contempt is civil or criminal depends on the cause for which the penalty is inflicted, not on the penalty; civil contempt enforces a personal right.
- U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Assn. (2022) 1 SCC 101
Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience; the contempt court is not to conduct a roving inquiry beyond the judgment allegedly violated.
- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Raj Kishore Yadav (1997) 3 SCC 11
Contempt jurisdiction is an independent jurisdiction of original nature.
- Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. AIR 2010 All 46 (FB)
Full Bench explaining the categories of orders against which Rule 5 of Chapter VIII bars a Special Appeal; agreed with.
- Abhishek Gupta v. Dinesh Kumar 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2739
Approving Sheet Gupta: a non-party may file a Special Appeal against an order under clause (b) with leave of the appellate court.
- Subhash Chandra v. Srikant Goswami 2024 SCC Online ALL 5435
Allahabad High Court Division Bench holding that a Special Appeal lies where the contempt court addresses the merits of the original dispute; its reliance on Ram Kishan Fauji considered.
- Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar (2009) 2 SCC 784
Followed Chunilal Nanda on the maintainability of appeals from orders on contempt applications.
- Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal (2015) 12 SCC 514
Followed Chunilal Nanda on the maintainability of appeals from orders on contempt applications.
- ECL Finance Ltd. v. Harikrishan Shankarji Gudipati (2018) 13 SCC 142
Followed Chunilal Nanda on the maintainability of appeals from orders on contempt applications.
- Vinita M. Khanolkar v. Pragna M. Pai (1998) 1 SCC 500
An appeal under the Letters Patent is maintainable unless expressly excluded by statute.
- Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509
Constitution Bench: access to justice is a facet of Articles 14 and 21; relied on in referring Ram Kishan Fauji.
- Pritam Singh v. State AIR 1950 SC 169
Jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary and is exercised only in special circumstances.
- J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (1996) 6 SCC 291
Cited by the appellant: an order passed in compliance cannot be judicially reviewed in contempt jurisdiction.
- Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao (2000) 10 SCC 285
Cited by the appellant: a contempt court exceeds jurisdiction if it examines the correctness of a compliance order.
- Niaz Mohd. v. State of Haryana (1994) 6 SCC 332
Cited by the appellant on the need for wilful disobedience for contempt.
- Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 569
Cited by the appellant on the need for wilful disobedience for contempt.
- Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha (2003) 11 SCC 1
Explains what civil contempt is; cited by the appellant on wilful disobedience.
- Hub Lal Yadav v. Mahendra 2017 ADJ Online 0638
Allahabad High Court decision treating contempt jurisdiction as criminal jurisdiction; such precedents may no longer be good law.
- Jagdamba Prasad v. Balgovind 2016:AHC:77023-DB
Allahabad High Court decision that no other appeal lies since Section 19(1) of the 1971 Act provides one.
