Panchayati Adalat superintendence and contempt: pending-proceeding publications can prejudice fair adjudication and attract contempt.

A Panchayati Adalat constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was treated as a court subordinate to the High Court for contempt purposes because it exercised statutory adjudicatory powers and its orders were subject to limited supervisory correction. The article also states that Article 227 preserves broader judicial superintendence, including control over excess or wrongful assumption of jurisdiction and correction where jurisdiction is wrongly declined. It further explains that publication concerning pending proceedings can amount to contempt if it presents disputed matters as settled facts and is likely to prejudice fair adjudication, even before the hearing is concluded; apologies may affect the sanction imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a Panchayati Adalat is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of contempt jurisdiction, and whether Article 227 preserves judicial superintendence over it; (ii) whether publication of matter concerning pending proceedings before the Panchayati Adalat amounted to contempt by prejudicing the parties and the administration of justice.

Issue (i): Whether a Panchayati Adalat is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of contempt jurisdiction, and whether Article 227 preserves judicial superintendence over it.

Analysis: The Panchayati Adalat was constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, exercised statutory powers to try certain matters, and its orders were final subject to limited supervisory correction. The Court held that such a body was a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act. It further examined the history of superintendence under prior constitutional and statutory regimes and held that Article 227 restored the wider supervisory power that existed before the restriction introduced by the Government of India Act, 1935. That power extended to checking assumption or excess of jurisdiction and compelling the exercise of jurisdiction where wrongly declined.

Conclusion: The Panchayati Adalat was subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of contempt jurisdiction, and the High Court retained judicial superintendence over it under Article 227.

Issue (ii): Whether publication of matter concerning pending proceedings before the Panchayati Adalat amounted to contempt by prejudicing the parties and the administration of justice.

Analysis: The publication treated disputed allegations as established facts, referred to the conduct of the applicant in relation to the very subject under inquiry, and was likely to poison the atmosphere in which the proceedings were to be decided. The Court held that contempt may be committed not only during the hearing but also when proceedings are imminent and the publication is calculated to prejudice fair adjudication. The apologies tendered were taken into account in deciding the extent of punishment.

Conclusion: The publication amounted to contempt of court, though the apology was accepted in part and only costs were imposed.

Final Conclusion: The contempt notice was withdrawn against two opposite parties on acceptance of apology, while the editor was found guilty of contempt and directed to bear costs only.

Ratio Decidendi: A publication that treats disputed matters pending before a court as settled facts and is likely to prejudice fair adjudication constitutes contempt, and Article 227 confers judicial superintendence enabling the High Court to control excess or wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by subordinate courts.

---