LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Gostho Behari Das vs. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors. (2023 INSC 653)

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 653Decided 28 Jul 2023
Civil Appeal No. 4725 of 2023
B.R. Gavai · Sanjay Karol

Background

The appellant, a medical doctor, had built an unauthorised structure deviating from municipal-sanctioned plans. After years of complaints and litigation before the Calcutta High Court over demolition of the illegal construction, a contempt petition was filed against him for non-compliance with the court's directions. In the course of those contempt proceedings, the High Court (through a series of orders) suspended the appellant's licence to practice medicine and later proposed extending that suspension to two years, prompting the doctor to appeal to the Supreme Court on the specific legal question of whether suspending a professional licence is even a punishment the Contempt of Courts Act allows.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 exhaustively prescribes only two punishments for contempt: simple imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to Rs. 2,000 (or both), and that Section 12(2)'s "notwithstanding any other law" language means no court can impose any punishment beyond this, regardless of the contemnor's profession. Relying on a five-judge Constitution Bench ruling (Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India), the Court reiterated that suspending a professional's licence (whether lawyer, doctor, or chartered accountant) is not a recognised punishment for contempt; that power belongs exclusively to the relevant statutory regulatory body (here, the National Medical Commission), which must hold its own inquiry with due process. The Court set aside the High Court's orders suspending the doctor's medical licence and revived it, while directing him to furnish an undertaking to the High Court about completing the remaining remedial construction work.

Lesson Learnt

A court exercising its contempt power cannot punish a person by taking away their professional licence to practise (medicine, law, or otherwise): that kind of disciplinary action can only come from the dedicated professional regulatory body through its own proper inquiry process, no matter how frustrated a court may be with non-compliance.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case