dear porfessor SCP. i came across this thread by google serach when I uploaded the browser woth Contempt Act 1971 Madras High Court Rules. I read one thiru.sabarinath having posted inter alia : "Actually sir, In accordance with the purview of either 129 or if 214 of the constitution, the contempt of court must be taken in cognizance by the court itself,.."
But read this portion of the judgment of Madras high court in the case of K.S.Illangovan vs The HighCourt Of Judicature. ( https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/632996/) :
"The petitioner is an advocate practicing in this High Court. He has filed this petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to amendment dated 20th September, 2007 amending Rule 6 (Sub-rules 2 & 3) of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 and quash the same as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. The petitioner has appeared in person. Respondent No.1 is represented by Mr.V.Ayyathurai, learned counsel and Respondent No.2 Government of Tamil Nadu is represented by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General.
3. Sub-Rules 2 & 3 of Rule 6 of the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court of Madras, 1975 prior to the impugned amendment, read as follows: - 6(2) Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges in respect of whose Judgment, Decree, Direction, Order, writ or other process the contempt is alleged, for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner. 6(3) In case the Judge or Judges concerned is or are not available, the Chief Justice may direct that the application be posted before some other Judge or Judges as the case may be for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner.
4. The aforesaid Rule was amended by amendment No.ROC No.855-A/2000/PR dated 20th September, 2007 and the amendment reads as follows: - In Rule 6, Sub Rule (2) of the Contempt of Court Rules, High Court, Madras, 1975, the following provision shall be inserted in the place of the existing provision. Every such application shall be posted before the Judge or Judges nominated by the Honble Chief Justice for orders as to whether notice shall issue to the alleged contemner. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the said Rules, shall stand deleted and sub-rules (4) to (6) shall be numbered as (3) to (5)"
But the advocate who filed the Wirt petiton lost it ( it was dismissed) . The resaons are given in paar 10 of the judgment cited above. Therefore if the conetmpt petiton need not be posted before the same judge. OIt is the discretion of the CJ to post it. .
But the sad and intriguing aspect of your matter is the order of the high Court of which the respodent had committed contempt by wilful disobedience has been reversed when posted before another judge. I Do not think he was competent at all. Did u pursue the matter and what was the result?
P.Padmanaabhan, advocate at 09:42 AM IST on 2dn march 2012
