In Addition To Punishing A Contemnor (Person/Party In Contempt) For Disobeying Its Orders, The Court Can Also Ensure That Such Contemnor Does Not Continue To Enjoy The Benefits Of His Disobedience.

1. The power for punishing for contempt of itself vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts is available in both under the Constitution ( Article 129 and 215 for Supreme Court and High Court respectively) and as well as the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

2. While exercising the contempt power, the Courts ought not, therefore, travel beyond the

four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged and only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same.

3. The issues that have already been decided issues ought not to be reopened in contempt proceedings nor the plea of equities ought to be considered.

4. The Courts ought to ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon.

5. Further no order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed ought to be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law;

6. Directions which are explicit in the judgment or ‘are plainly self-evident’ can be taken into account for the purpose of considering whether there is any disobedience or willful violation. The Court has a duty to issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of the Court order and in that regard, the Court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, in addition to punishing a contemnor (person in contempt / violation of court order) for disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.

The Supreme Court has dealt with the aforesaid / similar issue in the case titled Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik, a registered society versus Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust (SLP (Civil) No 34892 of 2014) The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment have been reproduced below:

“15. Significantly, the 2-Judge Bench had merely echoed the affirmation of the legal position by another 2-Judge Bench of this Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd.3. The principle that a contemnor ought not to be permitted to enjoy and/or keep the fruits of his contempt was reiterated therein. Reference was made by the Bench to Mohammad Idris vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji, wherein it was held that undergoing punishment for contempt would not mean that the Court is not entitled to give appropriate directions for remedying and

rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. Therefore, the principle that stands crystallized by these judgments is that, in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.”