SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M. Jagannadha Rao and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

SLP (C) No. 7217 of 2000, From the Judgment and Order dated 1-10-1999 in CA No. 19 of 1999 of the High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad. D/d. 28.9.2000.

Sandeep - Petitioner

Versus

D. Laxmi and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- H.S. Gururaja Rao, Senior Advocate (T.V. Ratnam, Advocate with him).

For the Respondent :- Ms. D. Bharati Reddy, Advocate.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 14 and 10 - Constitution of India, Article 215 - Contempt jurisdiction of High Court - When the High Court exercises contempt jurisdiction, it should exercise great restraint in first finding out whether there is contempt and also when it proposes strong observations against the contemnors who are present in court - Held that, there was no contempt and that the punishment and observations against the petitioner are required to be set aside.

[Para 3]

ORDER

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the directions given by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case No. 211 of 1999 dated 8-3-1999. They read as follows:

"Keeping the fact that the respondent came to adverse notice for the first time, though I held that he committed contempt, I am leaving him off with a warning with a hope and trust that it will have its own effect on him in future. As the contemnor is present in the Court he is given 24 hours time to admit the petitioners in the course."

2. When the matter went up in appeal before the Division Bench, the Division Bench went into the history of the case and found as follows:

"For all these reasons, we find no basis for holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and then administering a warning on the supposition that the appellant violated the Courts order in WP No. 5266 of 1998."

3. We are of the view that when the High Court exercises contempt jurisdiction, it should exercise great restraint in first finding out whether there is contempt and also when it proposes strong observations against the contemnors who are present in court. We are in entire agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in coming to the conclusion that there was no contempt and that the punishment and observations against the petitioner are required to be set aside.

4. This SLP appears to have been filed by a Professor of the university who has a feeling that he was humiliated in the contempt case in the High Court. But now that his stand has been vindicated by the order of the Division Bench, we do not find that any further orders are necessary.

5. So far as the other direction given by the Division Bench that the students should now be allowed to take the first phase of the examination is concerned, that direction appears to be correct and in the interests of justice, so far as the students are concerned.

6. The special leave petition is disposed of with the above observations.

.