Supreme Court Imprisons and Fines Contemnor for Disobeying Child Custody Orders: Meenal Bhargava vs. Naveen Sharma & Ors. (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 540

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Abhay S. Oka, J.

Can a person who has willfully disobeyed the orders of the Supreme Court be punished for contempt? The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed this question by imposing a sentence of imprisonment and a fine on a contemnor for failing to return a child to India, despite previous court orders. This case underscores the Court’s commitment to enforcing its orders and upholding the rule of law. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case involves a contempt petition arising from a prior order of the Supreme Court regarding the custody of a minor child. The petitioner, Meenal Bhargava, sought the return of her child to India, while the respondent, Naveen Sharma, was found to have willfully disobeyed the orders of the Supreme Court. The core issue revolved around the respondent’s failure to bring the child back to India by July 1, 2022, as previously directed by the Court. The respondent’s actions were deemed contumacious, leading to the present contempt proceedings.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s power to punish for contempt is derived from Article 129 of the Constitution of India, which states that 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. The Court also considered the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but clarified that its powers under Article 129 are not constrained by the provisions of the Act. The Court emphasized that its power to punish for contempt is unrestricted.

Arguments

Arguments of the Contemnor:

• The contemnor argued that he acted in the best interests of the minor child.
• He submitted that the child was subjected to sexual abuse while staying with the petitioner in India, and a forensic investigation is ongoing in the USA.
• He contended that the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem by the Circuit Court in the USA prevents him from bringing the child back to India until the investigation is complete.
• He claimed that he has acted in a bonafide manner to protect the interests of the minor child.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

• The petitioner argued that the contemnor is guilty of criminal contempt.
• She highlighted the contemnor’s conduct, which demonstrated a lack of intention to bring the child back to India.
• She pointed out that the contemnor did not apply for renewal of the child’s USA passport, despite its expiry.
• She noted that the contemnor never sought an extension of time from the Supreme Court to bring back the child.
• She emphasized that the contemnor contradicted his earlier statements by pleading in US Courts that he had not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issue before the Court was whether the respondent was guilty of contempt for disobeying the Court’s orders to bring the child back to India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on In Re : Perry Kansagra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1516*, Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549*, and Re : Vijay Kurle and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407* to assert its inherent and unrestricted power to punish for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India. These authorities were used to reinforce the Court’s position that its power to punish for contempt is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the contemnor’s blatant disregard for its orders, his lack of remorse, and his attempts to mislead both the Indian and foreign courts. The Court was particularly concerned with the contemnor’s conduct in discussing the ongoing litigation with the child, which was seen as an attempt to prejudice the child’s mind. The Court also noted the contemnor’s failure to take basic steps, such as renewing the child’s passport, which further indicated his lack of intention to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court emphasized that the contemnor’s actions amounted to both civil and criminal contempt, warranting strict action.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the contemnor’s arguments about acting in the best interests of the child but rejected them. The Court reasoned that the contemnor’s actions, such as not renewing the child’s passport and discussing the litigation with the child, indicated a lack of genuine concern for the child’s welfare. The Court emphasized that the contemnor had ample opportunity to comply with its orders and that his failure to do so was a deliberate act of defiance. The Court also noted that the contemnor’s attempts to mislead the foreign court and suppress evidence further demonstrated his contumacious conduct. The final decision was reached after considering all these factors, leading the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment and a fine.

“We are not reproducing all the findings recorded in the earlier order. In terms of the undertaking given by the contemnor and the orders of this Court passed from time to time, he was under an obligation to bring back the child to India on 1st July 2022.”

“The contemnor has shown scant respect to the judicial proceedings pending in this Court. He has defied assurance given to this Court that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this Court.”

“The acts and omissions of the contemnor, as reflected in what we have discussed above, amount to both civil and criminal contempt. This calls for a strict action against him.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to enforcing its orders, especially in matters concerning child custody.
• Disobeying court orders can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment and fines.
• The Court’s power to punish for contempt is not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and is derived from Article 129 of the Constitution.
• The Court emphasized that misleading other courts and attempting to suppress evidence are serious acts of contempt.
• The Court’s concern for the welfare of the child is paramount, and any actions that prejudice the child will be viewed seriously.

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s resolve to uphold the rule of law and ensure that its orders are not treated lightly. It serves as a warning to those who may consider defying court orders, particularly in sensitive matters such as child custody. The decision will likely have a significant impact on future contempt cases, highlighting the Court’s willingness to take strict action against contemnors.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The contemnor is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs within six months.
3. Failure to pay the fine will result in an additional two months of simple imprisonment.
4. The fine amount, once deposited, will be released to the petitioner for the welfare and benefit of the minor son.
5. The Government of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are directed to take all possible steps to secure the presence of the contemnor in India to ensure he undergoes the sentence and pays the fine.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has the inherent and unrestricted power under Article 129 of the Constitution of India to punish for contempt, and this power is not constrained by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court’s decision reinforces its commitment to enforcing its orders and ensuring that contemnors are held accountable for their actions. This case does not introduce a new legal principle but reaffirms the existing position of law regarding the Court’s power to punish for contempt.

Conclusion

In the case of Meenal Bhargava vs. Naveen Sharma & Ors., the Supreme Court sentenced the respondent to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs for contempt of court. The Court found that the respondent had willfully disobeyed its orders to return a minor child to India, and his actions demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process. The judgment underscores the Court’s determination to enforce its orders and uphold the rule of law, particularly in matters concerning child custody.