Cornmi_ssioner of. Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay· City v. 1rf.essrs. Bhogilal Laherchand Nov. 26. [1954] this question referred to the High Court in the affirmative. Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the respondent: Rajinder Narain. SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT. [MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Contempt of court-Contempt of Judges of High Court-Power of S1'preme Court to transfer proceedings to another High Court- Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, ss. 1(2), 527-Constitution of India, art. 215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, s. 3.
The Supreme Court bas no power under section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under any other provision of law to transfer from a High Court, proceedings which that High Court has initiated for contempt of itself, to another High Court. Section 527 of the Criminal Procedrire Code does not apply to such a oase as the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt of itself and to punish the contemner where neces- sary, is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in a.11 courts of record and section 1 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes such special jurisdictions from its scope.
It is desirable, on general principles of justice, that a Judge who has been personally attacked should not as far as possible hear a. contempt matter which, to that extent, concerns him personally.
In re Abdool and JJiahtab (8 W.R. Or. 32), Surendra.nath Banerjea v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Coi<rt of Bengal (10 I.A. 171), In re Abdul Hasan .Jauhar (I.L.R. 48 All.
711), In the matter of Sashi Bhi<shan Sarbadhicary (I.L.R. 29 All. 95), Crown v. Sayyad Habib (I.L.R. 6 Lah. 528 F.B. I, In re Adbul Hasan Jai<har (I.L.R. 48 All. 711), In the matter of Mi<slim Ont- look, Lahore (A.LR. 1927 Lah. 610), In re JJfurli Manohar Pra.<ad (I.L.R. 8 Pat. 323), Harkishen Lal v. The Crown (I.L.R.18 Lah. 69), Ambard v. Attorney-General .for Trinidad ct Tobago ([1936J A.O. 322), William Rainy v. The Justices of Sierre Leone (8 Moo. P.O. 47), InthematterofK.L.Gauba (IL.R. 23 Lah.411),Parash·tt'
ram Detaram v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1945 P'. 0. 134), ·Emperor y. . S.C.R. B. G. Horniman (A.!.R. 1945 All. I), In re Pollard (L. R. 2 P. C. 106), In re Vallabhdas (I.L.R. 27 Born. 394) and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh v. King Emperor (I.L.R; 4 Rang. 257) referred to. ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION : Petition (No. 1953) under section 527 of the Criminal Code. H. /. Umrigar for the appellant. of Procedure M. C. Setal11ad, Attarney~General for India ( G. N. /oshi, with him) for the respondent.
1953. November 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J.-This is an unusual· application. asking for a transfer of certain contempt proceedings from the Pepsu High Court to any other High Court and, in the
alternative, asking that ·at least the . matter should not be heard by two of the Judges of that· High Court who are named. This at once raises a question about our jurisdiction to order such a transfer.
The learned counsel for the applicant relied on sec- tion 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Briefly his reasoning. was this. Section 527 authorises the trans- · fer of any "case"
from one High Court to another whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. The word "case" is not defined – but "offence" is
defined in seiztion 4 (o) to mean "any act . or omission made punishable by any law for the time being · in force." Contempt is punishable . under the Contempt . of Courts Act, 1952, therefore it 'is an offence punish- able by a law which is in force ; consequently, it is an
offence. Being an offence it is triable under. the Criminal Procedure Code because section 5 makes the Code applicable not. ~nly to the trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code but also
to the trial of offences against "other laws." As it is a matter triable. under the Criminal Procedure Code it must be a "case" within the meaning of section 527 and accordingly the
section can be invoked here.- \Ve are unable to agree. In our opinion, . the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt SukhJIU Singh Sodhi v. • The Chief justicl
and Judges of thl Pepsu High Court. Su!dulni Sinzh Sodhi v. Tiu ChufJustia and Judgts af the Ptpsu High Cuurt. Bose]. [1954] and punish where necessary is a special jurisdiction which is · inherent in all courts of record and section
1 (2) of the Code expressly· excludes ~pecial jurisdic- tions from its scope. · The section runs- · "'In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing herein contained
shall affect any special. .. : . .law now in force -or any special jurisdiction or power conferred by any other law for the time being in force." The term "special jurisdiction" is not defined .in the
Criminal Procedure Code but the words "special law" are defined in section 41 of the Indian Penal Code to mean "a law applicable to a particular subject." In · the absence of any specific definition in tlie · Criminal Procedure Code we think that that
brings · out the ordinary . and . natural meaning of the words "special jurisdiction" and · covers· the present case. Contempt is a· special subject and the jurisdiction is conferred
by a special set of laws peculiar to courts of record. This has long been the view in India. In 1867 Peacok C. J. laid down the rule quite broadly m these words in In re Abdool and Mahtah (') :
"there can be no doubt that every court of record has the power of summarily punishing for contempt." It is true the same learned J u<lge sitting in the Privy Council in 1883 traced the origin of the power in
the case of the Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High Courts to the comm'On law of England [see Surendra- nath Banerjea v. Chief -Justice and Judges of the High Court of Bengal(')], but it is evident from other deci-
sions of the Judicial Committee . that the jurisdiction is broader based than that. But however that may be, Sir Barnes Peacock made it clear that the words "any other law" in section 5 of ·the Criminal Procedure
Code do not cover contempt of a kind punishable summarily by the three Chartered High Courts. Now it is relevant to hote in this connection that wh3tever the origin of the jurisdiction may be in the
(1) (1867) 8 W.R. Cr. 3(at 33. (•) (1883) 10 I.A. 171 at 179 •. S.C.R. SUPREME COUR1 REPORTS case of those three courts, the Charter of 1774 which 19:;3 established the Supreme Court of Bengal, while pro-
Sukhdev Sin[Jh viding in clause 4 that its Judges should have the Sodhi same jurisdiction as the Court of King's Bench in v. England, also expressly stated in clause 21 that the The Ohief Justice court is empowered to punish for contempt. When and Jud[Jes of the the Supreme Court of Bengal was abolished the High
.Pepsu ·Courts f\ct of 1861 continued those powers to the High Court. Chartered High Courts by sections 9 ·and 11 and clause Bose J. 2 of the Letters Pa.font of the year 1865 continued
them as courts of record. Despite this, in 1883 the Privy Council did not trace this particular jurisdic- tion of the Calcutta High Court to clause 15 of its Charter but to the common law of England. But
what is "the common law? It is simply this: that the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is something- inherent in every court of record. Sulaiman J. collect- ed a number of English authorities at pages 728 to
730 of his judgment in In re Abdul Hasan Jauhar (') and concluded thus : " These leading cases unmistakably show that the power of the High Court in England to deal with the contempt of inferior courts is based not so much on
its historical foundation as on the High Court's in- herent jurisdiction." Apparently, because of this the Privy Council held in 1853 that the Recorder's Court at Sierre Leone also
had jurisdiction to punish for contempt, not because that court had inherited the jurisdiction of the English courts but because ·it was a court of record. Their Lordships' lar1guage was this:
" In this country-ever~ court of record i'> the sole and exclusive judge of what amounts to a contempt of court ……… and unless there exists a difference in the constitution of the Recorder's Court at 8ierre
Leone the same power must be conceded to be in- herent in that court ………… we are of .opinion that it is a court of record and that the law must be con- sidered the same there as in this country."
(11 (1926) l.L.l{. 48 All. 711. [1954] The 1884 edition of Belchamber's Practice of the Sukhdw Singh Civil Courts also says at page 241 that- Sodhi " Every superior court of record, whether in the
Th Ch ~; J . United Kingdom, or in the colonial. possessions or e ie, usticed d fth C h and Judif" of the epen encies o e. rowi;i as _inherent power to Pepsu pumsh contempts, without its precmcts, as well as in
f Hi9hUourt. Jacie curiae ………………….. . Bose J. So also 7 Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham · edition) page 2- " The superior courts have an inherent Jurisdiction to punish criminal contempt etc ……………… "
But reverting to the developments in India. · The High Court of Allahabad was established in 1866 under the High.Courts Act of 1861 and was consti- -tuted a court of record. In 1906 the Privy Council
remarked at page 108 of its judgment in In the matter of Sashi Bhushan Sarbadhicary(') that- "There is also no doubt that the publication of this libel constituted a contempt of com·t which might
have been dealt with by the High Court in a sum- mary manner by fine or imprisonment or both." After this came the Government of India Act, 1915. Section 106 continued to all High Courts then in
existence the same jurisdiction, powers and. authority as they had at the commencement of that Act, and section 113 empowered the establishment of new High Courts by Letters Patent w.ith authority to vest in
them the same jurisdiction, powers and authority "as are vested in or may be conferred on any High Court existing at the commencement' of phis Act." The Lahore High Court was established by Letters
Patent in 1919 and was <:Wly constituted a court of record. In the year 1925 a Speuial Bench of that court punished a contempt of itself .in Grown v. Sayyad Habib("). After this the question was again agitated in . the
Allahabad High Court in 1926 but this time in respect of a contempt of a subordinate court. A Full Bench was convened and the learned Judges reaffirmed their (I) (1907) I.L.R. 29 AJI. 95.
(Z) (1925) !.L.R. 6 Lah. 528 (F.B.) ——-~ s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS 191i3 powers: In re Abdul Hasan Jauhar( 1). Two of the Judges based broadly on the inherent jurisdiction of
a court of record. Sulaiman J. said at page 727 Suki.a;vd:.inyh that "it is not the ter~itorial limits of the jurisdiction ~. ' of a Supreme Court" [of Bengal] "but the very nature The Chief Justice of its constitution that is of importance."
Boys J. and Judges of the however preferred to ground on the fact that that _Pepsu court "had conferred on it, by the statute and the lhghOourt. Letters Patent creating it, similar powers to those
conferred on the High Court of Calcutta," and at page 733 went on to say that that applied "to every other High Court in this country." In the presence of all this history the Contempt of
Uourts Act, 1926, was passed. The heading states that the Act is "to define and limit the powers of cer- tain courts in punishing contempts of courts." The preamble states- "Whereas doubts have arisen as to the powers of
a High Court of Judicature to punish contempts of courts and whereas it is expedient to resolve these doubts and to define and limit the p@wers exercisable by High Courts and Chief Courts in punishing con-
tempts of court: It is hereby enacted as follows:". Section 2 says:- "SubjeQt to the provisions of sub-section (3), the High Gour.ts of Judicature established by Letters Patent shall haV'e and exercise the same jurisdiction,
powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to them as they have and exercise in respect of contempts of themselves."
This recognises an existing jurisdiction in all Letters Patent High Courts to punish for contempts of them- selves, and the only limitation placed on those powers is the amount of punishment which they could th-ereafter
inflict. It is to be noted that the Act draws no dis- tinction between one Letters Patent High Court and another though it does distinguish between .Letters Paten,t High Courts and Chief Courts; also, as the
\1) (1~20) IL.R. 48 All. 711. Bose J. SUPREME COUR'i 1 REPORTS [1954] Act is intended to remove doubts about the High Court's powers it is evident that it would have con- Suk!tdev Singh
Sodhi ferred those powers had there been any doubt about v. the High Court's power to com,mit for contempts of The Chief Justice themselves. The only doubt with which the Act deals and Judges of the is the doubt whether a High Court could punish for P•p•u
a contempt of a court subordinate to it. That doubt HighGourt. the Act removed. It also limited the amount of Boee J. punishment which a High Court could inflict. Now this recognises an existing power in all
Letters Patent High C.:ourtB to punish and as the Letters Patent High Courts other than the Chartered High Courts could not have derived this power from the common law, it is evident that the power must
have been inherent in themselves because they were courts of record. In 1927 another Full Bench of the Lahore High Court consisting of five Judges re-examined the posi- tion : In the matter of Muslim Outlook, Lahore(').
They reaffirmed their earlier decision in The Crown v. Sayyad Habib el and held that this jurisdiction is inherent in every High Court and not merely in the three Chartered High Courts.
In 1928 a Full Bench of the Patna High Court examined the matter [In re llfurli Manohar Prasad(')] and then committed for. contempt. In 1936 another Special Bench of the Lahore High Court [Harkishen
Lal v. '/.'he Crown(')] followed the earlier Lahore deci- sions. The Privy Council decided a case of contempt from Trinidad in HJ36 [Ambanl v. Attorney-General for Trinidad & Tobago(')] and held that it was a quasi-
criminal offonce and in the course of their judgment they referred to an earlier decision of th·e Board from Sierre Leone to which we have already referred [William Rainy v. The Justices of Sierre Leone(')]. In
the Trinidad case their Lordships did not accept. the extreme proposition that every court of record is the (1) A.LR. 1927 Lah. 610. (2) (1925) I.L.R. 6 Lah. 528. (3) (1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 323' –
(4) (1937) I.LR. 18 Lah. 69. (5) [1936] A.C. 322, \6i s Moo. P.C. 47. ''""' S.C.R. sole and exclusive judge of what amounts to a con- tempt because of their decision in Surendranath
Sukhdev Singh Banerjea v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Sodhi Court of Bengal(1), but they did not doubt the sound· v. ness of the decision otherwise. The Ohief Juslice
. and Judges of lhe In ·1942 the Lahore High Uourt exammed the pos1- · Pepsu tion in a Full Bench for the third time and reached HighOouri. the same conclusion : In the matter of K.L. Gauba(
2 ). This time they pointed out that the Sind, Rangoon BoseJ. and Nagpur High Courts had alf:;o punished summarily for contempts. They also referred to two American decisions where, though the power was said to have
been derived from the common law, it was said that- "The power to fine and imprison for contempt from the earliest history of jurisprudence has been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of a
court without which it could no more exist than with- out a Judge ……. " Finally, in Parashuram Detaram v. Emperor( 3) the Privy Council said that "this summary power of punishing for contempt ……. is a power which a
court must of necessity possess." We have omitted references to the Bombay and Madras decisions after 1883 because the Judicial · Committee settled the powers of the three Chartered
High Courts. What we are at pains to show is that, apart from the Chartered High Courts, practically every other High Court in India has exercised the jurisdiction and where its authority has
been challenged each has held that it is a jurisdiction inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. This is important when we come to construe· the later legislation because by this time it
was judicially accepted throughout India that the jurisdiction was a special one inherent in the very nature of the court. The only discordant note that we know of was struck in Emperor v. B. G. Horni-
man(4) where a Division Bench of the Allahabad (I\ (1883) IO I.A. lJI. (2) (r942) I.L.R. 23 Lah. 4rr. (3) A.I.R. 1945 P.C. 134 at 136. (4) A,I.R. 1945 All. I at f· [1954] ig53 High Court held that afterthe Act of1926 the offence of
contempt was punishable under an Indian penal Sukhdev Singh statute and so the Code of Criminal Procedure applied Sodhi v. because of the words "any other law" in section 5. The Chief Justice In our opinion, this is wrong because the Act of 1926 and Judges of th_e does not confer any jurisdiction and does not create· _Pepsu
the offence. It merely limits the amount of the HighOourt. punishment which can be given and removes a certain BoseJ. doubt. Accordingly, the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and take seisin of the matter is as before.
The Pepsu High Court was established in 1948 and section 33 of the Ordinance which established it recites that it shall be a court of record and that it shall have power to punish for contempt. It will be
remembered that the Charter of 1774 which established a Supreme Court for Bengal said the ·same thing of that court and yet the Privy Council did not trace its powers about contempt from the Charter but from
the common Jaw. In the same way, the law by this time was so well settled in matters of contempt that the words "court of record" and "power to punish for contempt" had acquired a special meaning. Con-
sequently, it is immaterial whether in 1948 the power of the Pepsu High Court was derived from section 33 or was inherent in the nature of the court because whichever it is the jurisdiction is a special one, and·
had the legislature desired to take_ it away and confer another kind of jurisdiction it would have been neces- sary to use express words in view of the case law which by then had become well established.
In 1950 came the Constitution of India and article 215 st.ates that- " Every High 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."
Here again, whether this is a fresh conferral of power or a continuation of existing powers hardly m~tters because whichever way it is viewed the jurisdiction is a special one and so is outside the purview of t.ho:i Crimi- µal Procedure Coqe,
r' '· S.C.R. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, was repealed by · Act XXXII of 1952. Section 3 of the new Act is similar to section 2 of the old and. far from conferring a new jurisdiction, assumes, as did the
old Act. the existence of· a right to puniSh for contempt in everv High Court and further assumes the existence of :i . special practice and procedure. for it says that every Hil!h Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction, powers
and authoritv "in accordance with the same procedure and practice." These words are new and would be inappropriate if the Criminal Procedure Co<le applied. In any case, so far as contempt of a High Court itself is
concerned. as distinct from one of a subordinate court, the Constitution vests these rights in every High Court, . so no ·Act of a legislature could take away that juris- diction and confer it afresh by virtue of its own autho- . rity.
It is true section 5 expantis the ambit of the authority beyond what· was till then considered to be possible but it does not confer a new jurisdiction. It merely widens the scope of an existing jurisdiction of a
very special kind. On reflection it will be apparent that the Code could not be called in aid in such cases, for if the Code applies it must apply in its entirety and in that. event
how could such. proceedings be instituted ? The maxi- mum punishment 1s now limited to six month's simple imprisonment or a fine of · Rs. 2,000 or both because of the 1952 Act. Therefore, under the second schedule
to the Code contempt would be triable by a Magistrate . and not by a High Court and the procedure would have to be a ·summons procedure. That would take away the right of a · High Court to deal with the matter sum-
marily and punish, a right· which was ·well established by the case law up to and which no sub- sequent legislation has attempted to remove. So also section 556 . could not apply, nor would the rule which
prohibits a judge from importing his . own knowledge of the facts into the case. We hold therefore -that the · Code of .Criminal Procedure does not apply in matters of contempt triable by the High Co\lrt. The High Court
can deal with it su=arily .and ·. adopt its own 1953. Sukhdeu Singh Sodhi . v. The Chief justlu andjudges ef tlu · Pepsu /[jgh Court . Bo»e J., 1953 .\' SukMtU Singh – . Sodhi v. T1" Chi'f Justic1
and judges of tM fepsu High Court. Bose J. SUP~ME COURT REPORTS ;··- .. [1954] procedure. All ihat is necessary is that. the procedure is fair and that the contemner is made aware
of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This rule was laid down by the Privy Council in In re Pollard(•) and was followed in India and in Burma in In re Vallabhdas(' )
and Ebrahim Mamoojee · Parekh v. King Emperor(' ). In our view 1..tJiat is still the· 1aw. . If the Code of Criminal Procedure does not ap~ly, then there is no other power which we
can exercise. The Constitution gives every High Court the right and the power to punish a contempt of itself. If we were to order a transfer to another court in . this case we would be depriving the Pepsu High Court of the right
which is so vested in it. \Ve have no more power to do that than has a legislatilre. As for transfer from · one Judge to another, there again there is no original juris- diction which we can
exercise. . It is not a funda- mental right and so article 32 has no application and there is no other law to which recourse · can be had. This petition is therefore incompetent and must
be dismissed. We wish however to add that though we have no power to order a ·transfer in an . original petition of · · this kind we consider it ·desirable on general principles of justice
that a judge who has been · personally attacked should · not as far as possible hear a contempt matter which, to that extent; concerns him person- ally. It is otherwise when the attack is not directed
against him personally. We do not lay down any general rule because there may be cases where that is impossible, as for example. in a court where there is only one judge or two. and both are attacked.
Other cases may also arise where it is more convenient and proper for ·the . judge to deal with the matter himself, as for example in a contempt in facie curioe. All we can say is that this must be left to the good sense of
the judges themselves who, we are confident, will (r) L.R. 2 P.C. 1o6 at 120. (2) 1.L.R. 27 Bom. 394 at 399. · (3) l.L.R. 4 Rang. 257 at 259°261. s.o.:R. SUPREME COURT :REPORTS comport themselves with that dispassionate dignity
and decorum which befits their high office and will Sukhdev Singh bear in mind the oft quoted maxim that justice must Sodhi not only be done but must be seen to be done by all v. concerned and most particularly by an accused person The Chief Justice who should always be given, as far as that is humanly and Judges of tltc possible, a feeling of confidence that he will receive a
H.P;r;::Urt. fair, just and impartial trial by judges who have no. ig personal interest or concern in his case. Petition dismissed. Agent for the petitioner: Ratnaparkhi Ananl Gov·ind. ·
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. MINERVA MILLtl LTD. v. THEUt WORKERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, B. K. MuKHERJEA an<l JAGANNADHADAS JJ.) Indnstrial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 7, 8, 10-Tribitnal cansti- t·11ted for fixed period-Oonstitittion of new tribimal for hearing cases not fitlly disposed of by previoiis tribitnal-Legality-Powers of State Government.
Under Section 7 of the Industria,l Disputes Act, 1947, the ap- propriate Government has ample power to constitute an industrial tribunal for a fixed period of time ancl to constitute a new tribunal on the expiry of that period, to hear ancl dispose of all references made to the previous tribunal whicb had not been disposed of by that tribunal.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 140 to 143 and 156 and 157 of 1953. Appeals by special leave granted by the Supreme Court by its Order dated the 23rd April, .1953, from the
.decision dated tile 19th December, 1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Third Bench, Madras, in Appeals Nos. Bom. 245/52, 246/52, 247/52 and 248/52. Oct. 8.