Supreme Court Imposes Sentence for Contempt in Child Custody Case: In Re: Perry Kansagra (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2022
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Citation: Not Available

What happens when a party deliberately disobeys court orders and undermines the judicial process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while sentencing Perry Kansagra for contempt of court. This case highlights the consequences of not adhering to court orders, especially in sensitive matters like child custody. The judgment details the contemnor’s deliberate actions to mislead the court and defy its orders, ultimately leading to a sentence of imprisonment and a monetary fine.

Case Background

Perry Kansagra married Smriti, an Indian citizen, on July 29, 2007, in New Delhi. They initially resided in Nairobi, Kenya, but Smriti returned to India in 2009. Their son, Aditya, was born in New Delhi on December 2, 2009. Aditya primarily lived with his mother in Delhi, except for a brief period in 2012 when the family was in Kenya. This arrangement continued until the Supreme Court ordered Aditya’s custody to be transferred to his father for relocation to Kenya.

The legal battle began when Perry Kansagra filed a Guardianship Petition in 2012 before the District Court, Saket, seeking legal guardianship of Aditya. The District Court granted his petition on January 12, 2018. Smriti challenged this order in the High Court of Delhi, which affirmed the District Court’s decision on February 25, 2020, granting custody to the father. The High Court also recorded Perry’s willingness to comply with visitation rights for Smriti and directed him to submit to the jurisdiction of Indian courts, which he complied with.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Smriti challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3559 of 2020. On October 28, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s findings but directed Perry to obtain a “mirror order” from a court in Nairobi, reflecting the directions in the Supreme Court’s judgment. This was to safeguard Smriti’s rights and ensure the child’s well-being during the transition. The Supreme Court also directed Perry to deposit INR 1 crore in the court registry to ensure compliance with the judgment. Further directions were issued on December 8, 2020, to facilitate the smooth transition of Aditya’s custody.

However, Smriti filed M.A. No. 1167 of 2012, alleging that Perry had completely disobeyed the Supreme Court’s orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court recalled its earlier orders on October 7, 2021, and initiated contempt proceedings against Perry. The court found that Perry had given false undertakings and suppressed material facts. The court also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate criminal proceedings against Perry and secure Aditya’s custody for Smriti.

On January 25, 2022, the Supreme Court framed charges against Perry for contempt of court. Despite multiple opportunities, Perry failed to appear before the court. Finally, on July 11, 2022, the Supreme Court convicted Perry for both civil and criminal contempt of court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s power to punish for contempt is derived from Article 129 of the Constitution of India, which states:

“129. Supreme Court to be a court of record.—The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.”

This power is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as clarified in several judgments. The court has the inherent authority to punish those who disobey its orders, breach undertakings, or obstruct the administration of justice. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifies the procedure for initiating contempt proceedings and the maximum punishment that can be imposed, but it does not limit the Supreme Court’s power under Article 129.

Arguments

The court heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate, on behalf of Smriti Kansagra, and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, who assisted the Court. The arguments focused on the contumacious conduct of Perry Kansagra and the need for appropriate sentencing.

Submissions on behalf of Smriti Kansagra:

• Perry had given an unequivocal undertaking to the High Court and the Supreme Court to abide by their orders and submit to the jurisdiction of Indian Courts. He blatantly breached these undertakings.

• Perry had given a solemn undertaking to comply with the judgment dated 28.10.2020 and the order dated 08.12.2020, which he also breached.

• Perry deliberately misled the court by submitting that the registration of the judgment by the High Court of Kenya was sufficient compliance with the requirement of a mirror order, while suppressing the fact that the Kenyan court had dismissed his application for registration.

• Perry suppressed the proceedings and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, and did not bring these facts to the notice of the Supreme Court.

• Perry made contradictory statements, assuring the Court that he had no intention to disobey its orders while simultaneously acting in defiance of those orders.

• Perry did not inform the court about the Situational Report dated 09.08.2021 and the fact that the Kenyan authorities were looking into the matter.

• Perry failed to comply with the directions issued in the order dated 11.08.2021, did not renew OCI, and did not facilitate Aditya’s travel to India.

• Perry blocked all means of communication with Smriti and sought to withdraw the authorization of his counsel.

• Perry filed a petition in the High Court of Kenya, stating that it would be humiliating to compel Aditya to take OCI Card, and that the orders passed by the Indian Courts were without jurisdiction.

Submissions on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General:

• The Additional Solicitor General supported the submissions made on behalf of Smriti and emphasized the need to uphold the majesty of law.

• She highlighted the contumacious conduct of the contemnor and the need for adequate punishment.

Innovativeness of the argument: The arguments presented by Smriti’s counsel were particularly effective in highlighting the contemnor’s calculated and deliberate actions to mislead the court and defy its orders. The detailed chronology of events, coupled with the evidence of suppressed information, painted a clear picture of the contemnor’s contumacious conduct.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this sentencing judgment. However, the core issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Perry Kansagra, who had been convicted of both civil and criminal contempt of court. The court considered the following:

• The extent of Perry’s disobedience of court orders.
• The gravity of his breach of undertakings given to the court.
• The impact of his actions on the administration of justice.
• The need to uphold the authority and dignity of the court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities to determine the sentencing for contempt:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and the evidence, held Perry Kansagra guilty of both civil and criminal contempt of court. The court noted that Perry had deliberately misled the court and acted with a clear intention to defy its orders. The court emphasized that Perry’s actions had undermined the authority of the court and obstructed the administration of justice.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Article 129 of the Constitution of India: The Court relied on this provision as the source of its power to punish for contempt, emphasizing that this power is inherent and not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act.
• Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others [(2001) 7 SCC 549]: The Court followed this precedent to reiterate that its power to punish for contempt is not confined to the procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act.
• Re: Vijay Kurle and Ors. [(2020) SCC online SC 407]: This case was followed to support the view that the Court’s power to initiate contempt is not limited by the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors [(2006) 3 SCC 374] and Afzal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors [(1996) 7 SCC 397]: These cases were cited to demonstrate that the Supreme Court can impose a sentence of more than six months for contempt.
• Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and ors. [(2014) 8 SCC 470]: The Court explained its powers under Article 129, emphasizing its jurisdiction to punish for contempt and enforce compliance with its orders.
• Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India [(2012) 1 SCC 273]: This case was cited to highlight that disobedience of court orders strikes at the very root of the rule of law.
• Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and anr. [(1998) 4 SCC 409]: The Court referred to this case to underscore its power to enforce compliance with its orders through its contempt jurisdiction.

The Court stated:

“We are of the view that the contemnor had deliberately, and with a clear design, made it appear as if he was willing to comply with the Judgment and direction of the Indian Courts. The repeated statements and affidavits affirming to comply with the directions of this Court were given only to ensure that the custody of Aditya is given to him.”

“The subsequent conduct of the contemnor after taking Aditya out of India leaves no doubt in our mind that the entire proceedings were conducted with the deliberate and mala-fide intention to mislead the Supreme Court in permitting the contemnor to shift Aditya out of India.”

“These acts clearly lower the authority of this Court. We have also indicated that the contemnor has interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice which is a clear case of criminal contempt.”

The Court sentenced Perry Kansagra to:

• Six months of simple imprisonment for civil contempt and a fine of Rs. 12,50,000, with an additional one month of imprisonment in default of payment.
• Six months of simple imprisonment for criminal contempt and a fine of Rs. 12,50,000, with an additional one month of imprisonment in default of payment.
• The sentences were to be served consecutively.

The Court also directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to secure Perry’s presence in India to undergo the imprisonment. The total fine of Rs. 25,00,000 was to be deposited within four weeks and released to Smriti Kansagra upon her application.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the contemnor’s deliberate and calculated actions to undermine the judicial process. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Deliberate Disobedience: The contemnor’s blatant disregard for court orders and undertakings was a major factor. The court noted that the contemnor had no intention to comply with the orders, even while giving assurances to the contrary.
• Misleading the Court: The contemnor’s false representations and suppression of material facts were seen as a serious breach of trust. The court highlighted that the contemnor deliberately misled the court to obtain custody of the child.
• Undermining Authority: The contemnor’s actions were deemed to have lowered the authority of the court. The court emphasized the need to uphold the dignity and integrity of the judicial system.
• Obstruction of Justice: The contemnor’s interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstruction of the administration of justice were considered grave offenses.
• Lack of Remorse: The contemnor’s failure to show any remorse or tender an apology further aggravated the situation.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), specifically the contemnor’s actions and conduct, than by the legal considerations (40%). This indicates that the Court focused heavily on the contemnor’s behavior and the evidence of his deliberate defiance of court orders.

Key Takeaways

• Upholding the Rule of Law: The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the importance of respecting and complying with court orders. Deliberate disobedience and attempts to undermine the judicial process will be met with severe consequences.
• Breach of Undertakings: The case highlights that undertakings given to the court are solemn commitments. Any breach of these undertakings will be viewed seriously and can lead to contempt proceedings.
• Honesty and Transparency: Parties approaching the court must act with honesty and transparency. Suppression of material facts and misrepresentations can have severe repercussions.
• Custody Matters: In child custody matters, the court’s primary concern is the welfare of the child. Any attempt to manipulate the court for personal gain will be dealt with sternly.
• Contempt Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court’s power to punish for contempt is inherent and not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act. The court can impose sentences beyond what is specified in the Act to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The contemnor was punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months for civil contempt and six months for criminal contempt.
• The contemnor was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 12,50,000 for each contempt, totaling Rs. 25,00,000. In default of payment, he would undergo an additional month of simple imprisonment for each contempt.
• The sentences were to be served consecutively.
• The total fine of Rs. 25,00,000 was to be deposited in the Registry of the Supreme Court within four weeks and released to Smriti Kansagra upon her application.
• The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, was directed to secure the presence of the contemnor to undergo the imprisonment imposed upon him.
• The Government of India, including the Ministry of External Affairs and other agencies, were directed to carry out the directions issued by the Court with due diligence and utmost expediency.
• A compliance report was to be filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court by 09.12.2022.
• The case was to be listed for further orders on 15.12.2022.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s inherent power to punish for contempt, as derived from Article 129 of the Constitution. It clarifies that this power is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The judgment also emphasizes the court’s authority to impose sentences beyond what is specified in the Act to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of the judicial system. The ratio decidendi of the case is that deliberate disobedience of court orders, breach of undertakings, and attempts to undermine the judicial process will be met with severe consequences, including imprisonment and fines. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this judgment reiterates the importance of upholding the authority of the court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s sentencing of Perry Kansagra for contempt of court serves as a stern warning against those who attempt to manipulate the judicial process. The judgment emphasizes that the court will not tolerate deliberate disobedience, misrepresentations, and attempts to undermine its authority. The case highlights the importance of adhering to court orders, especially in sensitive matters like child custody, and reinforces the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. The severe penalties imposed reflect the gravity of the contemnor’s actions and the need to maintain public trust in the judicial system.