High Court can initiate contempt of court case even if concerned judge does not: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that the High Court acting as a court of record can initiate suo motu contempt of court proceedings even if the judge or court that witnessed the contemptous act does not do the same. [Suo Motu v. Yeshwanth Shenoy].The Court made the observation while upholding the contempt of court case initiated by it in 2023 against advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, who is now the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA).A Division Bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and G Girish observed that contempt of court proceedings are not initiated to vindicate the dignity and honour a particular judge or court, but to uphold the majesty of the justice administration system as a whole. ."In a given case, despite the fact that the contempt is on the face of the Court and even then, if the concerned Court does not proceed to punish the contemner after following the procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the [Contempt of Courts] Act, then can it be said that the High Court on its own should not do anything and remain silent? ...The concerned Court for many reasons may not deem fit to proceed in accordance with the procedure as laid down under Section 14 of the Act, but that by itself will not prevent the High Court in suo- motu exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution, as a Court of Record, and Section 15 of the Act to proceed against the alleged contemner", the Court stated in its judgment..The judgment was passed on a contempt of court case initiated by the Court against Shenoy, after Justice Mary Joseph (now retired) wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court in February, 2023, expressing displeasure over Shenoy's conduct in her court. .The Chief Justice, acting on the administrative side, deemed it fit to place the matter before the Division Bench which hears contempt of court matters. The bench in turn issued notice to Shenoy.Shenoy then requested the Court to drop the case and discharge him. To support his prayer, Shenoy alleged that there were many procedural violations in how the case was initiated and conducted so far..One among Shenoy's contentions was that as per Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the proceedings should have been initiated by Justice Joseph herself since the incident occurred before her. However, Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, who was appointed by the Court to conduct the case, argued that the said provision is only intended to enable High Courts or the Supreme Court to initiate proceedings for contempt committed in its presence or during a hearing. Sreekumar argued that the fact that the concerned judge did not proceed under Section 14 does not prevent the High Court from initiating suo motu contempt of court proceedings. On this point, the Court, after exhaustively analysing relevant precedents, agreed with the senior counsel. Based on this conclusion alone, several of the other procedural violations alleged by Shenoy were dismissed by the Court. .However, one of his contentions was left open for consideration at a later stage. This contention was regarding the fact that the letter written by Justice Joseph was not a part of the material that was placed before it at the first instance. It was placed before the Division Bench only after the bench issued an order based on Shenoy's objection to its absence. Shenoy argued that the non-furnishing of this document before he had to file his counter affidavit is not a curable defect as his rights have already been affected. The Court opined that this a question that requires detailed consideration and posted the matter for further hearing on June 10. .[Read Judgment]