Supreme Court Holds Perry Kansagra Guilty of Contempt for Violating Undertakings and Defying Court Orders in Child Custody Case

Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022

Citation: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a party who has given solemn undertakings to the court and then deliberately violates them be held in contempt? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a child custody dispute. The Court found Perry Kansagra guilty of contempt for violating his undertakings and defying court orders, highlighting the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. This case underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that its orders are respected and that parties do not abuse the legal system.

Case Background

The case involves a child custody dispute where Perry Kansagra had initially obtained custody of his child, Aditya, based on undertakings given to the High Court and the Supreme Court. Perry had assured the courts that he would comply with their orders and submit to their jurisdiction. He also presented an order from the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, which he claimed was a “Mirror Order” reflecting the directions of the Indian Supreme Court. However, it was later revealed that the Kenyan High Court had dismissed the application for registration of the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment, a fact Perry did not disclose to the Indian Supreme Court. This non-disclosure and subsequent actions led to the initiation of contempt proceedings against Perry.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with the powers of the court to punish for contempt. The Court also referred to Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes making a false statement on oath, and Section 182 of the IPC, which punishes giving false information to a public servant. The Court emphasized that making false statements or providing false undertakings to the court is a serious matter that interferes with the administration of justice. The court also considered its inherent power to recall orders obtained through fraud, as established in various precedents.

Arguments

The arguments presented by Smriti Madan Kansagra focused on Perry’s repeated violations of his undertakings and the orders of the court. The arguments were categorized into two phases: actions before July 2021 and actions after July 2021.

Arguments Before July 2021

• ✓ Perry gave multiple undertakings to the High Court and Supreme Court to comply with visitation rights, submit to Indian court jurisdiction, and abide by court orders.
• ✓ He filed an affidavit stating that the Kenyan High Court order was a “Mirror Order,” which was later proven false.
• ✓ He removed Aditya from Indian jurisdiction based on these false undertakings and the legally untenable “Mirror Order.”

Arguments After July 2021

• ✓ Perry refused to bring Aditya to India for Smriti’s visitations.
• ✓ He suppressed the fact that the Kenyan High Court had set aside the “Mirror Order.”
• ✓ He did not comply with the order to get Aditya interviewed by the Supreme Court.
• ✓ Perry falsely stated that he was complying with court orders.
• ✓ He breached the order to send Aditya to India and apply for his OCI card.
• ✓ He discharged his counsels at a crucial stage of the proceedings.
• ✓ He deliberately cut off all communication between Aditya and Smriti.
• ✓ Perry initiated proceedings in the Kenyan High Court in violation of his undertakings and the anti-suit injunction order.
• ✓ He obtained a restraining order in Kenya against Smriti, preventing her from taking Aditya out of the country.
• ✓ He refused to appear before the Supreme Court and blocked Smriti on all forms of communication.
• ✓ Perry refused to accept service of process in the contempt proceedings.
• ✓ He continued to refuse to appear before the Supreme Court despite repeated orders.

Smriti argued that Perry’s actions demonstrated a deliberate and wilful contempt of court, including perjury and criminal contempt. She relied on various precedents to support her claim that Perry should not be heard until he purges the contempt by bringing Aditya back to India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether Perry Kansagra had violated the solemn undertakings given to the High Court and the Supreme Court.
2. Whether Perry Kansagra’s actions amounted to contempt of court.
3. Whether the orders obtained by Perry were based on fraudulent representations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its findings:

On the Rights of a Contemnor

• Hadkinson vs. Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567: The court held that removing a child in violation of court orders is gross contempt, and the contemnor has no right to be heard until the child is returned to the court’s jurisdiction. (Court of Appeal)
• Regina vs. Jones (Robert) 1972 1 WLR 887: The Court of Appeal held that an applicant who absconds waives the right to be present at the trial, and the judge can proceed in their absence. (Court of Appeal)
• Anil Panjwani (2003) 7 SCC 375: The Supreme Court held that a contemnor may not be heard until they purge the contempt.

On False Statements and Criminal Contempt

• Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 757: The Supreme Court held that filing a false affidavit is a basis for initiating contempt proceedings.
• Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Sharma (1995) 1 SCC 421: The Supreme Court held that a person who attempts to deceive the court interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt.
• ABCD v. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 521: The Supreme Court reiterated that making false statements on oath is punishable under Section 181 of the IPC, and providing false information to a public servant is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC. The court also emphasized that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court, interferes with the administration of justice and can be held guilty of contempt of court.
• K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481: The Supreme Court held that suppression of material facts is a jugglery and manipulation and has no place in equitable jurisdiction.

Legal Provisions

• Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishes making a false statement on oath.
• Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishes providing false information to a public servant.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Deals with the powers of the court to punish for contempt.

Judgment

The Supreme Court found Perry Kansagra guilty of contempt of court. The court noted that Perry had not responded to the notices issued to him and had failed to appear before the court. The court held that Perry had violated his undertakings and made false statements, thereby interfering with the administration of justice. The court emphasized that it has the inherent power to nullify orders obtained through fraud and that it would be failing in its duty if it did not address Perry’s contemptuous conduct.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Hadkinson vs. Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567*: The Court followed this decision to emphasize that a contemnor who removes a child in violation of court orders should not be heard until the child is returned.
• Regina vs. Jones (Robert) 1972 1 WLR 887*: The Court followed this decision to assert that a contemnor who absconds waives the right to be present at the trial.
• Anil Panjwani (2003) 7 SCC 375*: The Court followed this decision to reiterate that a contemnor may not be heard until they purge the contempt.
• Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 757*: The Court followed this decision to highlight that filing a false affidavit is a basis for initiating contempt proceedings.
• Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Sharma (1995) 1 SCC 421*: The Court followed this decision to emphasize that attempting to deceive the court interferes with the administration of justice and constitutes contempt.
• ABCD v. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 521*: The Court followed this decision to reiterate that making false statements on oath and providing false information to a public servant are punishable under the IPC, and such actions amount to contempt of court.
• K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481*: The Court followed this decision to highlight that suppression of material facts is a manipulation and has no place in equitable jurisdiction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by Perry’s deliberate and calculated actions to deceive the court and violate its orders. The court emphasized the following points:

• ✓ Perry’s repeated false undertakings and affidavits.
• ✓ His non-disclosure of the Kenyan High Court’s order.
• ✓ His deliberate defiance of court orders.
• ✓ The fraudulent nature of his actions in obtaining custody of Aditya.
• ✓ The need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Parties must strictly adhere to the undertakings given to the court.
• ✓ Non-disclosure of material facts can lead to serious consequences, including contempt of court.
• ✓ The court has inherent power to recall orders obtained through fraudulent means.
• ✓ Contempt proceedings can be initiated against those who defy court orders.
• ✓ The court will not allow its process to be abused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Perry must present himself before the court on 22.07.2022 at 3.00 pm along with Aditya. The Court also stated that Union agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation, shall exercise all necessary powers to secure the presence of Perry and Aditya and to implement the Court’s orders.

Development of Law

The judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s position that any party that makes false statements before the Court and attempts to deceive it, interferes with the administration of justice, and is guilty of contempt of Court. The Court has the inherent power to nullify the effect and impact of orders obtained by practicing fraud upon the Court. The judgment also reinforces the principle that a contemnor may not be heard until they purge the contempt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held Perry Kansagra guilty of contempt of court for violating his undertakings, making false statements, and defying court orders. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that parties do not abuse the legal system. The judgment serves as a strong message that the court will not tolerate fraudulent conduct and will take strict action against those who attempt to deceive it.

Category

Parent Category: Contempt of Court

Child Category: Violation of Undertakings

Child Category: Defiance of Court Orders

Parent Category: Child Custody

Child Category: Parens Patriae Jurisdiction

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 181, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Child Category: Contempt of Court

FAQ

Q: What is contempt of court?

A: Contempt of court is the act of disobeying or disrespecting the authority of a court, which can include violating court orders, making false statements, or attempting to deceive the court. It is a serious offense that can result in penalties.

Q: What happens if I violate an undertaking given to the court?

A: Violating an undertaking given to the court can lead to contempt of court proceedings. The court may impose penalties, including fines or imprisonment, and may also recall orders obtained based on the false undertaking.

Q: What is the significance of a “Mirror Order” in this case?

A: A “Mirror Order” is an order from a foreign court that reflects the directions of a domestic court. In this case, Perry was required to obtain a “Mirror Order” from the Kenyan High Court. However, the Kenyan court dismissed the application, which Perry did not disclose to the Indian Supreme Court.

Q: What are the consequences of suppressing material facts from the court?

A: Suppressing material facts from the court is a serious offense that can lead to contempt of court proceedings. The court may also nullify orders obtained by suppressing facts and may impose penalties on the party that suppressed the information.

Q: What is the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in this case?

A: The CBI was directed to initiate criminal proceedings against Perry and to secure the custody of Aditya. The CBI was also directed to issue a Red Corner Notice to secure Perry’s presence and a Yellow Corner Notice for the child.