Punjab and Haryana High Court: A contempt petition was filled by the petitioner under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 10, 12 and 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for alleging willful disobedience of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 81. A Single Judge Bench of Sudeepti Sharma, J., held that the contempt petition would not be maintainable as its subject matter was entirely civil in nature and thus fell outside the purview of contempt jurisdiction. The Court imposed cost of Rs 50,000 for petitioner’s conduct as instituting frivolous litigation had resulted in gross misuse of the judicial process.
Background
In the case concerned, petitioner, who was the owner of a property, stated that the builder had violated the mandate of the Supreme Court on the subject of the communities which were the basic duty of the builder while providing uninterrupted water supply. Despite continuous representation of the grievances, the builder had failed to discharge his statutory and contractual obligations.
The petitioner contended that disconnection of water supply especially when ordered by a Court or done in violation of Court orders, could lead to contempt of Court charges.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that the contempt petition would not be maintainable as its subject matter was entirely civil in nature and thus fell outside the purview of contempt jurisdiction. The Court stated that despite being specifically directed by this Court to avail appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law, the petitioner ha persisted in pressing this contempt petition without any tenable basis.
The Court opined that the petitioner had engaged in a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Further, the Court called such conduct a gross abuse of the judicial process and held that it contributed significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The Court stated that the tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics, undermines the very foundation of our legal system and clogs the administration of justice.
Referring to Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 and in the interest of justice, the Court opined it was vital that bona fide and timely claims were adjudicated expeditiously, without being impeded by vexatious and unscrupulous litigation.
The Court observed that the time and resources of the Court were finite and must be preserved for genuine grievances deserving of judicial intervention. With the objective of sending a strong deterrent message, the Court imposed exemplary costs Rs 50,000 upon the petitioner. Further, the Court stated that the amount concerned shall be deposited by the petitioner within two months with the treasure of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, which shall be utilized for construction or renovation of Women Bar Room, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.
[Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5339, decided on 24-7-2025.]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate
For the Respondents: Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G. Punjab
Buy Constitution of India HERE
