Jharkhand High Court single-judge questions Division Bench decision to close contempt case against State AG

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of Jharkhand High Court recently sought a larger bench decision on a Division Bench's recent judgment to close a contempt of court case against Advocate General (AG) Rajiv Ranjan on technical grounds [Mansoor Ansari v The State of Jharkhand].Justice Dwivedi in 2021 had ordered registration of a suo motu contempt case against Ranjan after he had sought recusal of the judge in a matter. The AG had claimed that he had overheard an opposing counsel saying that the case will be “allowed 200%”.However, the contempt case was closed by then Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ambuj Nath in May this year on the ground that the single-judge had not recorded the words and utterances of Ranjan in the order for initiation of proceedings against him.It had further ruled that without framing a charge and affording an opportunity to the opposite parties to explain their conduct, a reference under Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act for registering a criminal contempt proceeding was not maintainable..Justice Dwivedi in an order passed on July 5 reopened the matter against Ranjan by making reference for a larger bench decision on the legal findings of the Division Bench. The single-judge passed the order in a different case in which it had prima facie found the Jharkhand Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag to be in contempt of court.However, the Court decided not to issue contempt notices to the officers on account of the law laid down by the Division Bench in AG Ranjan's case..Questioning the Division Bench's ruling, Justice Dwivedi referred to certain apex court judgments in which it has been held that Supreme Court and the High Courts are only required to follow a procedure which is fair and meet the essential requirements of natural justice."The Hon'ble Court rejected the argument that while exercising such constitutional jurisdiction, the Court's exercise of power could be vitiated on the ground of procedural irregularities relying upon Sections 15 and 17 of the Act, 1971," the judge noted.The single-judge added that it was "facing difficulty" in the present case against DGP and SP due to the law laid down by the Division Bench, which it said prima facie was contradictory to the judgments of Supreme Court."This Court in the present case is confronted with the situation i.e. (i) when in earlier two dates in the present case, the Court has not issued notice and now it can be issued or not? and (ii) further on the first date itself, charge is required to be framed along with notice or not? and (iii) this Court has initiated suo motu contempt in Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 3 of 2021, the procedure followed by this Court in that case was not accepted by the Hon'ble Division Bench and this Court do not want to proceed in haste as procedural defect is doubted by the Hon'ble Division Bench and clarification on that point is necessary before proceeding in the present matter as this Court is in a perplexed situation what procedure to be adopted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Contempt Case (Crl.) No.3 of 2021," it said..Considering the doubts, Justice Dwivedi remarked the he does not want to proceed in the present case distinguishing the judgment of the Division Bench in view of principle of judicial propriety.The judge, however, opined that the Division Bench judgment "is per inquirium which is not binding effect, however, due to judicial propriety, it will not be proper for this Court to proceed ignoring the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Contempt Case (Crl.) No.3 of 2021.".In this backdrop, the Court said that it would not for now proceed in the contempt case against the DGP and SP. Accordingly, it ordered that the judgment of the Division Bench in the contempt case against AG be reconsidered by the larger Bench and following questioned be considered,.(i) Should the Court take cognizance of a contemptuous act on the first date, or should it proceed with caution, providing the contemnor an opportunity to respond before taking cognizance? Additionally, is it necessary to record every detail in the order to maintain judicial propriety?(ii) Whether on the very first date or on the date of taking cognizance, charge is to be framed and after notice/cognizance, charge can be framed on the first date of appearance and as per procedure of criminal law? (iii) When a contemner is put on notice along with all relevant documents, they should be given the opportunity to review these documents and respond after their appearance. If this procedure is not followed after appearance, can it be considered a procedural lapse?(iv) When a Single Judge of a constitutional Court takes suo motu cognizance of contempt and refers the matter to the Division Bench under Sections 15 and 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, can this be considered merely a reference?(v) When in a case Advocate General is in contempt, procedure prescribed in Section 15 (1)(c) and Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of Contempt of Courts is required and is there any bar to exercise power of suo motu action? .Advocate Praveen Shankar Dayal appeared for petitioner.AAGs Ashutosh Anand and Sahbaj Akhtar appeared for respondent..[Read Order]