ABHISHEK vs PATTANAIK CPC 625/19 03/06/21 [ A.M. Khanwilkar J & B. R. Gavai J ]

[ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

• Civil Contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the Court Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is wilful Word wilful ntroduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions Act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely” Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily Deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same – Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part – Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.

Relevant paras

50. It was then urged that the principle of proportionality has
been recognised as an aspect of Article 14 by this Court in
Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State
of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.45 and in view whereof, the
cancellation of entire selection process, being disproportionate, is violative of Article 14.
51. Further, it was urged that even in the case of malpractice and malafide, entire selection process should not be cancelled but the tainted and untainted candidates ought to be segregated. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on decisions of this
Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.46, Girjesh Shrivastava & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.47 and Joginder Pal & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Ors.48. It was then urged that the mandate of decisions of High Court dated 28.11.2017 and 25.7.2018 and of this Court dated 16.3.2018 and 15.11.2018 was to re­work the answer sheets and a limited liberty to that effect was given to the respondents.

for more Click here for the judgment 

CR_8353_2019_13_01_2020_FINAL_ORDER -The-Law-Literates

all rights reserved ( Vaibhav Tomar 𝔸𝕕𝕧)