National
Apex court cautions tribunals on use of contempt power
By J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI, DEC. 8. The Supreme Court has cautioned the administrative tribunals that ``contempt jurisdiction is not to be exercised casually but only sparingly and in very deserving cases''.
A Bench, comprising Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan, disposing of an appeal observed that ``it is appropriate to bear in mind the adage `it is good to have the power of a giant, but not good to use it always'''. The Bench said time and again that the Supreme Court had cautioned when and in what circumstances contempt of court jurisdiction was to be exercised.
The Bench observed that ``such a power is not intended to be exercised as a matter of course. Courts should not feel unduly touchy when they are told that the orders have not been implemented forthwith. If the court is told that the direction or the order of the court has been complied with subsequently, albeit after receipt of notice of contempt, we expect the courts to show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with the action for contempt''.
In this case, the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) convicted the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi under the Contempt of Courts Act and fined him Rs. 2,000 holding that there was delay in implementing the CAT's order. The present appeal was directed against this order of conviction by Mr. Suresh Chandra Poddar.
Setting aside the CAT's order and exonerating the appellant totally from the actions of contempt of court, the Bench said ``this is an instance of how a tribunal vested with the powers to punish for contempt of court became over-sensitive in using such powers. The fine, if any remitted, shall be refunded to him''.
Pointing out that the appellant had also tendered an apology before the tribunal, the Bench cautioned the courts that they should be generous in discharging the contemner if he tendered an apology to the satisfaction of the court.
Referring to the appellant's apology which was not accepted by the tribunal on the ground that it was found to be not genuine, the Bench observed ``we are dismayed, if not distressed, that despite delineating on all the steps adopted by the appellant for challenging the order of the tribunal before the High Court and despite the fact that he had implemented the order even though there was no time schedule to do so, the tribunal has chosen to depict the appellant's apology as one without contrition''.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
National
|
