[Kamakhya Temple management] No case for contempt made out by Bordeuri Samaaj: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a contempt petition filed by the Bordeuri Samaj, responsible for the management of the Kamakhya Temple in Assam, alleging misappropriation of funds by the Kamakhya Debutter Board (The Bordeuri Samaaj of Sri Maa Kamkhya v. Riju Prasad Sarma & ors)..By its 2015 judgement, the top court had ended a deadlock between the Bordeuri Samaaj and the Kamakhya Debutter Board regarding the management of the Kamakhya Temple and its subsidiary temples. The management now rests with the Bordeuri Samaaj, consisting of five families who elect the head priest called the Dolois..The Dolois moved the contempt plea before the Supreme Court alleging that the Debutter Board had not handed over property and cash that belonged to the temple and the deity, in violation of the 2015 judgment and an order passed in January 2020. It was alleged that the respondents hold over ₹11 crore belonging to the deity..Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan argued that in the apex court's order passed in January 2020, it was recorded that the Additional Director General of Police, CID Assam had submitted a report stating that the respondents misappropriated ₹7,62,03, 498 from the temple funds. He highlighted that the Debutter Board has not registered any objections to this report. The petitioners also submitted that the non-payment of the funds amounted to contempt of paragraph 73 of the 2015 judgement.Senior Advocate R Venkataramani, appearing for the respondents, argued that there is no direction in 2015 judgment to pay any amount to the petitioner or to the deity. He added that the power to punish for contempt has to be exercised with greatest care and caution..A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka found that there was no direction towards repayment in either the 2015 judgment or the January 2020 order. It went on to note that even if such instructions were mentioned, "there is no adjudication made to decide what is the extent of liability." As regards the January 2020 order, the Court noted,"Even in this order, there is no direction issued to pay the money which has been allegedly misappropriated. The reason is that the prima facie observation about misappropriation is based on the view expressed in the report. What is observed in the said report is not conclusive.".Thus, the Court held that there was no contempt case made out under Article 129 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971..[Read Judgment]