Clear and unequivocal court orders are essential for contempt, and a bona fide apology should be accepted.

Contempt liability cannot be imposed unless the order allegedly breached is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, and the breach is proved beyond reasonable doubt; where an interim status quo order restrained allotments but did not clearly prohibit issuance of licences, no contempt was made out. A bona fide apology under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with its explanation, should be accepted, and it should not be rejected merely because of its form when the record does not show lack of good faith. The contempt order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant committed contempt by issuing a licence after the interim order directing status quo as to allotment, and (ii) whether the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant ought to have been accepted.

Issue (i): whether the appellant committed contempt by issuing a licence after the interim order directing status quo as to allotment.

Analysis: The interim order restrained only allotments and did not contain a clear prohibition on issuance of licences under the relevant urban development statute. In contempt jurisdiction, the alleged breach must be established on the basis of a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal order, and contempt, being quasi-criminal in nature, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the operative order is susceptible to more than one understanding, it is not proper to expand it by interpretative reasoning so as to fasten contempt liability.

Conclusion: No contempt was made out against the appellant on the basis of the licence dated 28.12.2011.

Issue (ii): whether the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant ought to have been accepted.

Analysis: Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with its explanation, permits acceptance of an apology if it is bona fide, and an apology is not to be rejected merely because it is conditional or qualified in form. The apology here was tendered after explanation and there was nothing to show absence of bona fides.

Conclusion: The apology ought to have been accepted.

Final Conclusion: The contempt order was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In contempt proceedings, liability cannot be imposed unless the court order allegedly violated is clear and unequivocal and the breach is proved beyond reasonable doubt; a bona fide apology under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be rejected merely for its form.

---