Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
14. It is within the constitutional power of this Court to consider the contumacious acts of a contemnor and to punish him/her for the same. It is in exercise of such a power, unrestricted by the Contempt of Court Act that this Court had imposed a sentence of more than six months and also directed in some cases that the contemnor shall undergo rigorous imprisonment5.
15. 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. We are of the clear opinion that the contemnor had no intention to comply with the directions of the Court even while he gave the undertaking, filed solemn affidavit or even instructed his lawyer to so represent on his behalf.
16. 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.
17. This Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and ors.6 while articulating the powers under Article 129 held as follows: – “19. …It is therefore that Article 142 of the Constitution of India mandates that this Court “… in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India …”. And it is also inter alia for the above enforcement, that Article 129 of the Constitution of India, vests in the Supreme Court the power, amongst other things, to enforce compliance with the Court directions. The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction and power to punish for its contempt. It is this dispensation 5 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. 6 (2014) 8 SCC 470. Also see: Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409, para 38. IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] which authorises the Supreme Court to enforce compliance with its orders. For, the power to punish would serve no purpose if the power to enforce compliance was lacking. It was, therefore, that this Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India [(2012) 1 SCC 273 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 88 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 528 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 83] with reference to its contempt jurisdiction observed, thus : (SCC pp. 282-85, paras 26-27 & 34) “26. It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot [(2006) 5 SCC 1] , SCC p. 6, para 5)… 130 The scope of the instant contempt jurisdiction extends to punishing contemnors for violating the Court’s orders; punishing contemnors for disobeying the Court’s orders; punishing contemnors for breach of undertakings given to the Courts. It also extends to enforcement of the Court’s orders. The contempt jurisdiction even extends to punishing those who scandalise (or lower the authority of) any court; punishing those who interfere in due course of judicial proceedings; and punishing those who obstruct the administration of justice”
18. We have already convicted Perry Kansagra for contempt. The above referred facts are mentioned only to demonstrate that the contemnor has deliberately and with a clear intention committed egregious acts of contempt. These acts constitute willful disobedience of the judgment, direction and order of this Court coupled with willful breach of the undertaking given by the Court which constitute civil contempt. The contemnor has falsely represented before the foreign jurisdiction that Indian Courts have not sought the consent of Aditya and that the decision of the Supreme Court of India is unenforceable. 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.
19. In the circumstances and in order to mention the majesty of law, we must impose upon adequate punishment on the contemnor. We have also noted that the contemnor never showed any remorse or tender any apology for his conduct.
20. For the reasons stated above, we direct that the contemnor be: a) Punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months for civil contempt of Court for his acts of deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand), in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. b) Punished with simple imprisonment for a term of six months for criminal contempt of Court for obstructing the administration of Justice and lowering the authority of this Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand), in default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
21. In view of the egregious acts of civil as well as criminal contempt, we further direct that the sentences shall be served consecutively.
22. We further direct that the total fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty-Five Lakhs) as indicated above, to be deposited by the contemnor in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today and the same shall be released to Smriti Kansagra upon an application filed by her.
23. We also direct the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to secure the presence of the contemnor to undergo the imprisonment imposed upon him. Needless to say, Government of India including the IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Ministry of External Affairs and other agencies or instrumentalities shall carry out the directions issued by the Court with due diligence and utmost expediency. Compliance report shall be filed in the Registry of this Court by 09.12.2022.
24. We further direct the case to be listed for hearing for further orders on 15.12.2022. Ankit Gyan Directions issued. (Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)