PRIYA GUPTA VS ADD. SECY.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

The essentials of contempt proceedings were;

ESSENTIALS

The elements generally needed to establish a contempt are:

1. the making/ existemce of a valid court order,

2. knowledge of the order by respondent,

3. ability of the respondent to render compliance, and

4. wilful disobedience of the order.

But in our case there is no willful disobedience of the order as it was the necessity to install the
cupboards if it was not done than the room where they were residing is not is not in a condition to live
as it was mentioned in the reply filed on behalf of defendant no. 1,that her daughter had board exams
as well as her son various time got electric shock due to the moist wall..

So it can be said that it is “necessity” to do and not the willful disobedience of the order of the court

OM PRAKASH JAISWAL V. D.K. MITTAL, AIR 2000 SC 1136.

It is only when the court has found an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating
proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents or the alleged contemners
should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished then the court can be
said to have initiated proceedings for contempt.

Accidental Disobedience Sahdeo v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Where the order passed by the court is not complied with by mistake, inadvertence or by
misunderstanding of the meaning and purport of the order, unless it is intentional, no charge of
contempt can be brought home;

Welfare Association v. Arvind Verma

Before a Contemnor is punished for Disobedience of any Judgment, Order or Writ Court must satisfy
that Disobedience was willful. Disobedience of orders of court in order to constitute punishable
contempt must be willful

willful disobedience
Before a contemnor is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must not only
be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be
satisfied that such disobedience was willful and intentional.

Niaz Aluned v. State of Haryana

If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the court is satisfied
that although there has been a disobedience 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 court
may not punish the alleged contemnor;

What would be wilful disobedience was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok
Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Ors.,

(2003) 11 SCC 1, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 'wilful disobedience' means an act or
omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with
the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose
either to disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it signifies the act
done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has
to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case..

Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply
with the terms of the order.

Anil Ratan Sarkar and Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21,

Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold a person guilty of civil contempt. The
element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the
meaning of the Act.

Order susceptible to different interpretation/bonafide

A proceeding for contempt cannot be predicated upon the disobedience of the order or direction which
provides scope for different reasonable and rational interpretations.151 When an order alleged to have
been violated is subject to two interpretations, it cannot be said that a person has committed wilful
disobedience of that order, if he takes a defence of one of one of the two possible interpretations.1

S.K. Saha vs. Gokul Chandra Dhara,

In a case,156 petitioner challenged an order of the Govt. dated March 10, 1975 which reverted him to a
lower post. The High Court on September 17, 1975 made an order directing maintenance of status quo
as on that date till the disposal of the writ petition. The Govt. did not allow the petitioner to join higher
post from which he was reverted. The petitioner filed a contempt application which succeeded before
the learned single judge. On appeal the Division Bench set aside the order of learned single judge on the
finding that the view taken by the Govt. (that on September 17, 1975, i.e. the date of the status quo
order, the petitioner had been reverted to the lower post and that the status quo meant that his status
as the lower post holder should not be disturbed) was held bona fide.

B.K. Kar v. High Court of Orissa [ AIR 1961 SC 1367 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 438]

that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and
although disobedience might have been established, absence of wilful disobedience on the
part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of
fault or misconduct. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to
justify for holding one guilty of contempt. It is further relevant to bear in mind the settled
law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience
under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a
contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment.

STATUS QUO
If in a Property Suit an order to maintain the Status Quo has been passed, then you can't
sell, sublet, lease or do anything with the property. You have to keep the property as it was
on the date of passing of the order.

Not amount to contempt of court if act done in neccesity