Contempt of Court : Single Judge of the Kerala High Court doubts the correctness of the Division Bench Judgment in Jyothilal's case; directs the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for the same to be heard by a Bench of an appropriate strength

A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on Friday has doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench in K.R. Jyothilal v. Mathai M.J

In Jyothilal's case (supra),  a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court led by the then Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Dr. Manjula Chellur had directed the Single Bench to refer matters pertaining to contempt to the Division Bench. It was also held that the contemnor need not appear until a notice is given by the Division Bench.

 The Division Bench in Jyothilal’s case had further opined that, “The learned single Judge is required to hold a preliminary enquiry, only to find out whether there is or not a prima facie case. He shall not take cognizance in the matter. He directs the matter to be posted before the Division Bench only if he finds that there is a prima facie case.”

Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu has sought a review of the Division Bench judgment while hearing a contempt petition filed by M.P. Verghese, Asst. Professor at Model Engineering College, Thrikakara, "by a Bench of an appropriate strength" as determined by the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.

  
In the case before Justice Naidu, the petitioner Prof. M.P. Verghese, through his counsel Adv: S. Subash Chand had averred in his petition that the contemnor, Prof. Devassia, the Principal of the College had effected recovery from his pay and allowances in flagrant violation of the interim order passed by the High Court of Kerala. Justice Naidu found that there was gross contempt  and wanted the contemnor to be present in Court in person. However the same was opposed placing reliance on the dictum in Jyothilal's case [2014 (1) KLT 147]. 

The Court appointed Dr. K.P. Satheesan, senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter. Adv: S. Subash Chand and Dr. K.P. Satheesan, Senior Advocate both submitted that the implication of, and powers conferred on Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution were not considered in Jyothilal's case and the power of the Single Judge to drop proceedings by accepting the apology of a Contemnor was not considered in its correct perspective in Jyothilal's case. In similar circumstances, a judge of the subordinate judiciary conducting a preliminary enquiry before making a reference to the High Court has been authorised by at least 2 rulings of the Division Bench to summon the alleged contemnor in person in Court. 
 

 Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu held that, “It is not to be forgotten that independence of the judiciary has an insegregable and inseparable link with its credibility. Yet, it is a matter of statutory interpretation, and a fortiori, the dispensation of justice, that has made me come to a conclusion, despite my humble endeavour to reconcile Jyothilal’s case with the regulatory regime of contempt jurisprudence as practiced in this court that, Jyothilal(case) is irreconcilable in terms of statutory scheme and precedental parameters fixed by the Supreme court. It thus requires consideration by a Bench of appropriate strength as determined by the Chief justice.”  

Welcoming the reference order, Adv: S. Subash Chand, counsel for Prof. M.P. Verghese told the 'Kerala Law Review' in an exclusive conversation that he hoped that the ruling in Jyothilal's case will be reconsidered by an appropriate Bench so as to restore the legal position that existed prior to Jyothilal's case.