Contempt proceedings by High Courts against alleged violation of orders under appeal before the Supreme Court must be kept in abeyance during pendency of such appeals, reaffirming Apex Court directions; binding precedent for all subordinate courts and persuasive for parallel benches, with practical utility in contempt jurisprudence.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | COPCT/1/2024 of MILAT RAMA ND OTHERS Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | HPHC010074092024 |
| Date of Registration | 21-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the State; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Supreme Court’s interim direction in State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025 |
| Type of Law | Contempt jurisprudence; procedural law |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Courts can proceed with contempt petitions for alleged violation of orders that are under challenge before the Supreme Court; and the effect of Supreme Court-issued interim directions on pending contempt proceedings. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | The High Court, following the Supreme Court’s order dated 07.10.2025 in State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar & Others, held that there is no justification to proceed with contempt proceedings for alleged violation of an order under challenge before the Apex Court. As per the Supreme Court’s direction, such contempt proceedings are to be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, the matter was closed, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the proceedings if circumstances so require in the future. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The order explicitly relied on Supreme Court order dated 07.10.2025 in State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court’s principle that contempt proceedings should not proceed when the original order’s validity is sub judice before the Apex Court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | During the pendency of contempt petition regarding alleged violation of a court order, an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the same order. The Supreme Court had directed that contempt proceedings for the alleged violation should be kept in abeyance during the appeal’s pendency. The High Court complied with this direction and disposed of the contempt petition accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and future benches dealing with similar contempt scenarios |
| Follows | State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025 (Supreme Court order dated 07.10.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts should not proceed with contempt proceedings concerning the alleged violation of orders under challenge before the Supreme Court when the Apex Court has directed to keep such proceedings in abeyance.
- Explicitly endorses the Supreme Court’s interim directions as binding, irrespective of the underlying merits of the contempt petition.
- Grants liberty to revive the contempt petition after Supreme Court adjudication, preserving the parties’ rights.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted that the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025 (State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar & Others) directed that contempt proceedings relating to violation of a challenged order should be stayed pending the appeal.
- The High Court recognized the binding nature of the Apex Court’s interim directions on subordinate courts.
- Based on the Supreme Court’s order, the High Court held it had no justification to proceed with the contempt petition during pendency of the Supreme Court appeal.
- The court closed the contempt proceedings, providing liberty to the petitioners to revive the matter if circumstances change or if the need arises after Supreme Court’s decision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
(No substantive arguments detailed in the judgment; petitioners present through counsel.)
Respondent
The Additional Advocate General placed on record the Supreme Court’s order dated 07.10.2025, affirming that contempt proceedings should be kept in abeyance during pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court.
Factual Background
- Petitioners initiated contempt proceedings alleging violation of a High Court order.
- Meanwhile, an appeal against the same order was pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025.
- The Supreme Court issued an order directing that contempt proceedings in respect of the order under appeal should be kept in abeyance during pendency of the appeal.
- The High Court, applying the Apex Court’s direction, disposed of the contempt petition with liberty to seek revival if required.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses the procedural contours of contempt jurisdiction.
- The impact of Supreme Court directions on subordinate courts under Article 141 of the Constitution is implicitly recognized.
- The requirement to keep contempt proceedings in abeyance is treated as a procedural mandate derived directly from the Apex Court’s interim order.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment sets out a procedure whereby contempt petitions are to be closed (not merely stayed) with explicit liberty to revive upon conclusion of the Supreme Court appeal.
- This approach ensures procedural clarity and preserves parties’ substantive rights pending final disposition at the Apex level.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and applies the interim direction of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. Satish Kumar & Others, Civil Appeal No. 10021 of 2025.