Criminal contempt needs specific pleading of breach; vague allegations of D. K. Basu violations were found insufficient.

Criminal contempt requires a clear factual foundation showing which judicial direction was violated and how; a bare allegation of disobedience is insufficient. The text notes the distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt, and states that the earlier Full Bench view upholding the notification making the offence cognizable and non-bailable prevailed over the contrary Division Bench view. Because the petition did not specify which D. K. Basu direction had been breached or the manner of breach, the matter did not disclose a case for criminal contempt, and the procedure under Section 15 was not attracted on the pleadings made. The contempt petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contempt petition disclosed any ground for initiating criminal contempt proceedings for alleged violation of the directions in D. K. Basu and whether the petition could be maintained in the absence of specific pleading of the alleged breach.

Analysis: The distinction between civil contempt and criminal contempt was noted. The earlier Full Bench view upholding the validity of the notification making the offence cognizable and non-bailable was held to prevail over the contrary Division Bench view. On the facts pleaded, the application did not specify which direction in D. K. Basu had been violated or in what manner. The material, at best, suggested a complaint of disobedience, which did not establish criminal contempt, and the statutory procedure for contempt under Section 15 was not attracted on the case made out.

Conclusion: No case for initiation of contempt proceedings was made out; the contempt petition was dismissed.

---