U.N. Bora and Ors. vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (26 Oct 2021)

Vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt

MANU/SC/0984/2021

Contempt of Court

The present appeal has been filed against the order of the High Court finding the Appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order passed in Writ Petition in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that, the second Appellant was transferred on 23rd July, 2008 and the Appellant no. 1 was in-charge only till 21st January, 2009. The first Appellant died on 27th February, 2017. There is no willful and deliberate violation of the order involved. The High Court has erred in going into the facts in appreciating evidence. It could have relegated the members of the Respondent no.1 to go before the committee constituted. There is absolutely no material to implicate the Appellants with the alleged action of their subordinates. The concept of vicarious liability is alien to a contempt jurisdiction.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the “willful” disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature.

While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. It is the specific case of the Appellants that, they did not violate the directives of the Court. There is no material to either establish their knowledge on the action of their subordinates, or that they acted in collusion with each other.

Vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt. The question as to whether the drivers of two members of the Respondent no.1 showed the order passed by the Court and the documents produced are true and genuine being in the realm of adjudication, ought not to have been taken up by the High Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction. It is the Respondent no.1 who not being satisfied with the order passed by the High Court, filed the special leave petition. Even in the communications sent apart from the Press Note, it is nowhere stated that, the order passed by the court could be violated.The entire exercise of the High Court is not warranted and the aggrieved members of the Respondent no.1 could have been well advised to seek the alternative remedy open to them including redressal through the committee. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : VICARIOUS LIABILITY PRINCIPLE CONTEMPT