Case: Baradakanta Mishra Vs. Bhimsen Dixit

disregard or disobedience of the courts order; it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute.(vide 17 Corpus Juris Secundum pages 5 and 6; Contempt by Edward N. Dangel (1939) Edn. Page 14, Oswalds Contempt of Court (1910) Edn. Pages 5 and 6.)12. It is a commonplace that where the superior courts order staying proceedings is disobeyed by the inferior court to whom it is addressed, the latter court commits contempt of court, for it acts in disobedience to the authority of the former court. The act of disobedience is calculated to undermine public respect for the superior court and jeopardise the preservation of law and order. The appellants case is to be examined in the light of the foregoing principles and analogy.13. The remark in the appellants order found objectionable by the High Court is this: "Further, against the order we have moved the Supreme Court, and as such the matter can be safely deemed to be sub judice. It may be observed that on the date of the order nothing was pending in the Supreme Court only a petition was pending in the High Court for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision in Bhramarbar Santra, ILR 1970 Cut 54 = (AIR 1970 Orissa 141). The appellant has thus made wrong statement of fact. Secondly, the use of the personal pronoun "We is also significant. It indicates that the appellant identified himself as a litigant in the case and did not observe due detachment and decorum as a quasi-judicial authority. Lastly, we agree with the High Court that it is not possible to believe that the appellant could have entertained the view that as soon as a petition for certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court was filed in the High Court against its decision, the binding character of the decision disappeared. He has had 23 years judicial experience and he could scarcely entertain that belief.We agree with the High Court that the appellant deliberately avoided to follow its decision by giving wrong and illegitimate reasons and that his conduct was "clearly mala fide.14. Under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is vested with the power of superintendence over the courts and tribunals in the State, Acting as a quasi judicial authority under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, the appellant was subject to the superintendence of the High Court.Accordingly the decision of the High Court were binding on him. He could not get away from them by adducing factually wrong and illegitimate reasons.15. In East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, (1963) 3 SCR 338 = (AIR 1962 SC 1893 ), Subba Rao J. observed:"The Division Bench of the High Court held that a contravention of a condition imposed by a licence issued under the Act is not an offence under S. 5 of the Act. This raises the question whether an administrative tribunal can ignore the law declared by the highest Court in the State and initiate proceedings in direct violation of the law so declared. Under Art. 215, every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Under Art. 226, it has a plenary power to issue orders or writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose to any person or authority including in appropriate cases any Government, within its territorial jurisdiction. Under Art. 227 it has jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It would be anomalous to suggest that a tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court binding on subordinate courts. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior tribunal that all the tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer.16. The conduct of the appellant in following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior courts disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law.17. Our view that a deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the binding precedent of the High Court is contumacious does not unduly enlarge the domain of contempt. It would not stifle a bona fide act of distinguishing the binding precedent, even though it may turn out to be mistaken.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]conduct of the appellant in following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior courts disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law.17. Our view that a deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the binding precedent of the High Court is contumacious does not unduly enlarge the domain of contempt. It would not stifle a bona fide act of distinguishing the binding precedent, even though it may turn out to be mistaken.