Doctrine of merger does not extinguish High Court’s contempt of court powers: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the doctrine of merger does not take away a High Court’s power to entertain contempt of court proceedings for disobedience of its own orders, even after those orders have been affirmed by the top court [United Labour Federation vs. Gagandeep Singh Bedi]. .A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria set aside a Madras High Court order which had refused to hear a contempt of court petition on the ground that its earlier judgment had merged with a Supreme Court ruling."We are not convinced with the reasoning of the High Court that once the order passed by the High Court has merged with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the Contempt Petition would not be maintainable before the High Court, for the reason that the Contempt Jurisdiction is independent of the applicability of the Doctrine of Merger" the Court said. .The dispute arose from a 2007 order of the Madras High Court directing the Corporation of Chennai to absorb certain identified employees in order of seniority before appointing fresh candidates. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave in the matter and appeals were decided in 2017 with the top court affirming the High Court’s directions.However, according to the employees, the Corporation failed to comply with the order even after the Supreme Court ruling. As a result, they approached the Madras High Court again by filing a contempt of court petition alleging non-compliance.The High Court declined to entertain the contempt petition. It held that since its 2007 judgment had been taken in appeal and leave had been granted by the Supreme Court, the doctrine of merger applied. Therefore, the High Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with contempt.Aggrieved by this, the employees moved the apex court. .Before the Supreme Court, the employees argued that even if the doctrine of merger applied after grant of leave, the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act was independent and did not cease merely because the judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court.The top court agreed.It clarified that the once leave is granted and appellate jurisdiction is invoked, it does not automatically extinguish the High Court’s contempt powers.The Court observed that where the Supreme Court has not issued fresh directions but has merely affirmed the High Court’s order, what remains to be complied with are the directions originally issued by the High Court.If contempt jurisdiction were held to disappear upon merger, the Court noted, parties would be compelled to approach the Supreme Court in every case of alleged non-compliance, which could not have been the intent of the law..In view of this, the top Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the contempt petition for consideration on merits. .The appellants (employees) were represented by Senior Advocate V Prakash along with advocates Adviteeya and Rakesh K Sharma.The respondents were represented by advocates MF Philip, Purnima Krishna, Karamveer Singh Yadav and Togin M Babichen..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.