Suo motu contempt jurisdiction survives for subordinate courts where the High Court acts on reliable information and grave misconduct

Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is read harmoniously with Section 10 and Article 215 so that the absence of an express reference to suo motu action does not bar a High Court from acting on its own motion in criminal contempt of a subordinate court. The procedural requirements in Section 15(2) are treated as safeguards against frivolous action, not as an absolute jurisdictional restriction. A private petition may supply information on which the High Court may, in its discretion, proceed where the contempt appears grave and serious. The result is that suo motu cognizance remains available.

---

---

Issues: Whether a High Court can take suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt of a subordinate court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, even though that sub-section does not expressly mention such mode of action.

Analysis: Article 215 of the Constitution preserves the High Court's status as a court of record and its contempt powers, while Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 places contempt of subordinate courts on the same footing, as regards jurisdiction, power, authority, procedure, and practice, as contempt of the High Court itself. Section 15(1) expressly mentions suo motu action for contempt of the High Court or the Supreme Court, but Section 15(2) is silent on that mode for contempt of subordinate courts. That omission was read not as a prohibition, but as a provision to be construed harmoniously with Section 10. The procedural requirements in Section 15(2) were held to be safeguards against frivolous action, not an absolute bar on cognizance when the High Court acts on reliable information and considers the contempt grave and serious. A private petition may furnish information on which the High Court may, in its discretion, act suo motu, particularly where the petitioner is a responsible member of the legal profession and seeks such action.

Conclusion: Section 15(2) does not exclude the High Court's power to take suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt of a subordinate court. The appeal failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's cognizance was upheld and the matter was sent back for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must be construed harmoniously with Section 10 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India; accordingly, the absence of an express reference to suo motu action does not bar a High Court from taking cognizance of criminal contempt of a subordinate court on its own motion.

---