Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience; disputed facts cannot be tried in contempt proceedings, so the order was set aside.

Civil contempt requires wilful, conscious and deliberate disobedience, proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to decide disputed factual questions or to substitute for execution or other available remedies. Because the High Court had entered into the genuineness of documents and other contested facts, despite those issues being outside contempt proceedings, and because no material showed knowledge, intention, or deliberate non-compliance by the appellants, the finding of contempt could not stand. Vicarious liability was also impermissible without proof of deliberate conduct. The contempt order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the High Court finding the appellants guilty of civil contempt for alleged wilful disobedience could be sustained, and whether the contempt jurisdiction could be used to enter disputed questions of fact arising from levy of cess under the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.

Analysis: Civil contempt requires proof of wilful, conscious and deliberate disobedience. The element of knowledge and intention is central, and contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal, require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that contempt jurisdiction is not to be used as a substitute for execution or for deciding issues that were left to a separate forum, and that disputed factual questions should not be roved into in contempt proceedings. The High Court had earlier declined to decide the factual dispute and had provided a separate mechanism for redress, yet in the contempt proceedings it proceeded to assess the genuineness of documents and factual assertions. The Court held that such matters were outside the proper scope of contempt jurisdiction, that no material showed wilful disobedience or knowledge on the part of the appellants, and that vicarious liability could not be fastened in contempt in the absence of proof of deliberate conduct.

Conclusion: The finding of civil contempt was unsustainable and the contempt order was set aside; the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellants.

---