The Division Bench including Judge Devan Ramachandran And Justice MB Snehalatha noted that once a defect is found in the procedure, any attempt to continue it may be considered unilateral.

“Bound by the Constitution, as we are, this would harm public trust – the sine qua condition of any jurisdictional exercise; and would make judicial proceedings – particularly in Suo Motu contempt petitions – vulnerable to deleterious impressions of bias and vice.

In this case, contempt proceedings were initiated against advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, president of the High Court Bar Association, on the basis of a letter written by a High Court judge to the Chief Justice.

On the orders of the Chief Justice, the Registrar General took action. The High Court took cognizance of the matter and served notice on Shenoy.

Shenoy argued that the judge’s letter, which must be considered “information” under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, was neither annexed to nor part of the notice he received of the judge’s documents at the time he became aware of them.

When this contention was initially raised, another bench of the High Court had ordered the registry to incorporate the letter into the judge’s documents and deliver a copy of the letter to Shenoy. However, the Bar President argued that the Court was bound to release him under the rigor of Rule 14 of the Contempt of Courts (Kerala High Court) Rules, 1971.

Under Rule 14, after giving the respondent an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit, the Court must see whether the respondent has tendered an apology after admitting his contempt and then frame charges or, whether he there is no apology/confession, the Court can release him. if there is no prima facie case.

The Court held that there would be prima facie charges only if there is confidence that the proceedings can proceed without any legal inhibition.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Muthu case Karuppan v Parithi Ilamvasthuthi (2011) which ruled that procedures under the Contempt of Court Act must be strictly followed.

The Court observed that Section 9(1) provides that any application, reference, information or direction shall be subject to a preliminary hearing before the competent bench. Rule 9(2)(b) provides that the notice must be accompanied by a copy of the petition, reference, information or direction and annexes. The Court noted that the word “shall” is used in both of these circumstances and must therefore be strictly adhered to.

The Court further held that a proceeding which is incompetent from the outset, particularly when the Court has taken cognizance of it, cannot subsequently be transformed into a competent proceeding.

The Court held that no further proceedings should be allowed in this case on the grounds that the letter was not annexed to the judge’s documents at the time of taking notice and that the letter was not delivered to Shenoy with the notice of contempt.

“…the defect noted is incurable and cannot be corrected by the subsequent service of “information” on the defendant, especially when it is indisputable that this Court has taken cognizance of the case, this information not being available in the judge’s documents and therefore without having mentioned them. This is surely fatal to the prosecution of this case.“

Accordingly, the court dismissed the motion for contempt.

Counsel for the Applicant: Senior Advocate S. Sanal Kumar (Amicus Curiae)

Counsel for the defendant: Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy (Party in person)

Case No: Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 2/2023

Case Title: Suo Motu v Yeshwanth Shenoy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 666