The Supreme Court has held that courts are empowered to order parties in a contempt case to surrender their passport in order to ensure their presence in the proceedings.
“In order to ensure the presence of the parties in the contempt proceedings, the court is empowered to pass appropriate orders, including the surrender of passport,” a Bench of Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna held in a judgment pronounced on March 19.
The apex court clarified that contemnors would only be depositing their passport with the court.
The court was hearing a contempt case in connection with a civil suit on partition of a disputed property in Delhi. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had ordered one of the parties in the dispute to surrender his passport. However, a Division Bench of the court set aside the Single Judge order on August 1, 2018. It held that there was no need to “detain” the passport and ordered its return.
But Justice Banumathi agreed with the Single Judge’s order. “The order [of the Single Judge] was passed to ensure the presence of the first respondent [contemnor] and compliance of the order of the court. It cannot be said that the Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction or committed an error in ordering the surrender of the passport,” Justice Banumathi wrote in a 21-page judgment.
The court referred to a 2003 decision in David Jude vs. Hannah Grace Jude, in which the apex court directed the Centre to cancel the passport of the contemnor to ensure her appearance before the court on the date of hearing. The top court finally set aside the Division Bench order of the High Court. The Bench asked the Single Judge to continue with the civil suit over the property and dispose it of expeditiously within a period of nine months.
