Supreme Court dismisses contempt petition for non-payment of funds in Kamakhya Temple case (15 December 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 753

Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and Abhay S. Oka, J.

Can a contempt action be initiated against individuals for not paying a sum of money when the original court order did not explicitly direct such payment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a contempt petition arising from a dispute over the management of the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple. The Court considered whether the respondents’ failure to return funds, allegedly misappropriated, constituted contempt of a previous judgment. The bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around the management of the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple. The petitioner, the Bordeuri Samaj, claimed to be the traditional managers of the temple’s religious affairs, with the head priest (Doloi) elected from five families. In 1998, respondents 1 to 4 formed the Kamakhya Debutter Board, allegedly usurping the Bordeuri Samaj’s historical rights. The Bordeuri Samaj sought the court’s intervention to restore their management rights.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled in favor of the Bordeuri Samaj on 7th July 2015, directing the Debutter Board to vacate the temple premises and hand over the properties to the Bordeuri Samaj. The current contempt petition was filed because the Bordeuri Samaj alleged that the Debutter Board had not handed over certain immovable and movable properties, and had also failed to return a substantial amount of money that was allegedly misappropriated.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no. 5) and later to respondents 1 to 4. The Court recorded an undertaking from respondents 1 to 3 to provide bank account details. The State of Assam was later added as a party and submitted an affidavit outlining steps for implementing the 2015 judgment. The Court ordered a preliminary inquiry into the alleged misappropriated funds. A report by the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Assam, revealed a misappropriation of Rs. 7,62,03,498. Subsequently, the Court directed the lodging of a criminal case and a proper investigation.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case involves:

• Article 129 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This act defines and regulates the procedure for punishing contempt of court.

The Court’s power to punish for contempt is derived from Article 129 of the Constitution, which is further elaborated upon in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court’s contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised with care.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner, Bordeuri Samaj, argued that the respondents had breached the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment by not handing over all properties and funds belonging to the temple.
• The petitioner relied on the report of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Assam, which indicated a misappropriation of Rs. 7,62,03,498 by the Debutter Board.
• The petitioner contended that the respondents did not object to the report and should therefore be held liable for the misappropriated amount.
• The petitioner argued that the 2015 judgment applied to all properties of the Kamakhya Temple, including subsidiary temples.
• The petitioner submitted that the respondents were obligated to return the misappropriated money under the directions of the 2015 judgment.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the 2015 judgment did not contain a specific direction to pay any amount to the petitioner or the deity.
• They contended that the direction in paragraph 73 of the judgment only pertained to handing over the premises and other properties, which they had already complied with.
• The respondents relied on the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD. ONGC & Ors. v. M.George Ravishekaran & Ors. [(2014) 4 SCR 27], stating that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised with great caution.
• The respondents argued that since the immovable properties had been handed over, no contempt action could be initiated.
• The respondents argued that the previous judgment was only in respect of the main Kamakhya Temple and that the properties of the Kamakhya Temple need to be demarcated.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the respondents’ failure to return the allegedly misappropriated funds constituted contempt of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 7th July 2015.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD. ONGC & Ors. v. M.George Ravishekaran & Ors. [(2014) 4 SCR 27]* to emphasize that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised with great care and caution. The Court used this authority to support its decision not to initiate contempt proceedings in the present case, given the lack of a specific direction for payment in the original judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Lack of Specific Direction: The most significant factor was the absence of a clear direction in the 2015 judgment to pay any specific amount of money. The Court emphasized that paragraph 73 of the judgment only referred to the handing over of premises and properties.
• Discretionary Nature of Contempt Jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that the contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.
• Non-Conclusive Nature of the Inquiry Report: While the inquiry report indicated a prima facie misappropriation, it was not a conclusive finding. The Court noted that the respondents did not have an opportunity to object to the report.
• Need for Adjudication: The Court pointed out that even if a direction to pay money was implied, there was no adjudication to determine the exact extent of liability.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, especially when there is no explicit direction in the original order. The Court also considered the factual aspect of the case, such as the inquiry report, but emphasized that it was not conclusive.

The Court considered the argument that the respondents had not objected to the inquiry report. However, the Court noted that the respondents had not been given an opportunity to object to the report. The Court also considered that even if the 2015 judgment was interpreted to include a direction to pay money, there was no adjudication to determine the extent of the liability. The Court rejected the argument that the respondents were in contempt of court.

The Court’s decision was reached by a unanimous bench of two judges. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s decision implies that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for non-compliance with an order unless the order contains a clear and specific direction. The decision also highlights the importance of due process in contempt proceedings.

“Perusal of the Judgment shows that there is no discussion therein about the liability of the respondent nos.1 to 4 to pay any specific amount.”

“Even in this order, there is no direction issued to pay the money which has been allegedly misappropriated. The reason is that the prima facie observation about misappropriation is based on the view expressed in the report. What is observed in the said report is not conclusive.”

“Hence, in our view, no case made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

Key Takeaways

• Contempt proceedings require a clear and specific direction in the original order.
• Contempt jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously.
• Inquiry reports indicating misappropriation are not conclusive and require adjudication.
• Parties must be given an opportunity to object to inquiry reports before being held liable.
• This decision clarifies that a general direction to hand over properties does not automatically include a direction to pay money.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for non-payment of funds if the original judgment does not contain a specific direction for payment. This reinforces the principle that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised with caution and only when there is a clear violation of a specific court order. This case does not change the previous positions of law but rather clarifies the existing principles regarding contempt of court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, holding that the respondents could not be held in contempt for failing to pay the misappropriated funds because the original judgment did not specifically direct such payment. The Court emphasized the need for a clear and specific direction in the original order for contempt proceedings to be initiated. The Court also highlighted the discretionary nature of contempt jurisdiction and the importance of due process in such proceedings.