Contempt appealability limited to punitive orders; show-cause and appearance directions remain procedural under inherent contempt powers.

An interlocutory order in contempt proceedings that merely issues a show cause notice and directs personal appearance is not appealable as of right under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, because it does not finally determine guilt or impose punishment. The High Court may, under its contempt jurisdiction preserved by Article 215, supported by section 23 and its rules, regulate the proceeding by issuing notice and requiring appearance, provided fairness and natural justice are observed. Such procedural directions do not, at that stage, infringe Articles 19 or 21.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal lay under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an interlocutory order issuing a show cause notice and directing personal appearance in contempt proceedings; (ii) whether the High Court had power under its contempt rules and the Constitution to require the alleged contemners to appear and to regulate the contempt proceeding in that manner.

Issue (i): whether an appeal lay under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an interlocutory order issuing a show cause notice and directing personal appearance in contempt proceedings.

Analysis: Section 19 permits an appeal as of right only from an order or decision made in the exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. A mere order initiating contempt proceedings, calling for a response, or regulating appearance does not finally determine any lis and does not amount to the exercise of punitive jurisdiction. The order under challenge was only a preliminary step and did not adjudicate guilt, impose punishment, or decide any right finally.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable against the interlocutory show cause order and the objection to its maintainability succeeded.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court had power under its contempt rules and the Constitution to require the alleged contemners to appear and to regulate the contempt proceeding in that manner.

Analysis: The contempt jurisdiction of a High Court is a special jurisdiction preserved by Article 215 of the Constitution of India and supported by section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the framed contempt rules. The Court held that, subject to fairness and natural justice, it had incidental and inherent power to adopt its own procedure, issue notice, require personal appearance, and secure effective control over the proceeding. Such directions were treated as procedural and as not infringing Articles 19 or 21 at that stage.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction to show cause and appear personally was upheld as within its contempt jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the contempt order failed because the impugned direction was only procedural and the appellate court declined interference, leaving the contempt proceeding to continue before the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory order in contempt proceedings that merely issues notice and regulates appearance, without finally determining guilt or imposing punishment, is not appealable under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the High Court may regulate such proceedings by its inherent contempt powers subject to fairness and natural justice.

---