LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vitusah Oberoi & Ors. v. Court of Its Own Motion

Criminal Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2007)Decided 2 Jan 2017
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2007
Chief Justice T.S. Thakur · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Background

Journalists and a cartoonist at the newspaper "Mid Day" published stories and a cartoon in May 2007 alleging that the sons of a former Chief Justice of India (Justice Y.K. Sabharwal) had benefited in their real-estate business from sealing orders their father had passed on the bench shortly before retiring. The Delhi High Court took up the matter as suo motu contempt and found the journalists guilty of contempt, directing them to appear for sentencing.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the publications, on their own terms, were directed at the Supreme Court (specifically a former CJI's conduct as a Supreme Court judge) and not at the Delhi High Court or any court subordinate to it. Under Article 215 of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a High Court's contempt power extends only to contempt of itself or of courts subordinate to it: it has no power to punish contempt of a superior court like the Supreme Court, which is reserved to the Supreme Court itself under Article 129. Since the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to initiate these proceedings, its order was without jurisdiction and was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Lesson Learnt

A High Court cannot punish anyone for contempt of the Supreme Court; each court of record's contempt power is confined to contempt of itself and of courts below it, not courts above it.

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