The Karnataka High Court ruled that private parties cannot bypass statutory requirements in criminal contempt proceedings. The Court held that petitions filed without written consent of the Advocate General are not maintainable and can only be treated as information brought before the court.
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that private parties cannot sidestep the statutory protections laid down for criminal contempt proceedings. It held that a petition is not maintainable in its current form if it has been filed without the written consent of the Advocate General, and that it should instead be treated only as information brought to the court’s notice.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T delivered the ruling while hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against Prabhat Sharma, Garima Sharma, IPS officer Ranu Sharma, and ACP Tanvir.
The company sought contempt action alleging deliberate disobedience of an earlier High Court order passed in December 2024.
Advocate Angad Kamath appeared for the complainant. Advocate Kavitha Damodaran represented accused Nos. 1 to 3, while Advocate Rahul Krishna Reddy P. appeared for accused No. 4.
Senior counsel Dhananjaya Joshi raised a preliminary objection challenging maintainability.
The dispute stemmed from a civil suit filed by the company against the respondents, alleging misuse of confidential and proprietary information.
During that civil litigation, the High Court had appointed a Court Commissioner through an order dated December 6, 2024, authorising search and seizure of data storage devices, files, and documents from the respondents’ premises. The company’s case was that the respondents obstructed execution of the commission warrant and prevented the Court Commissioner from carrying out the exercise. On these allegations, the company approached the High Court seeking criminal contempt proceedings.
The respondents argued that the petition had been filed by a private party without obtaining the mandatory prior consent of the Advocate General, as required under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They contended that the requirement is not a procedural technicality but a substantive safeguard meant to prevent misuse of the contempt jurisdiction.
The complainant countered that the petition was merely placing information before the court, and that the High Court could independently initiate suo motu contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution. The company relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Prashant Bhushan contempt matter, to argue that information can reach the court through a petition filed by a private individual.
After examining the statutory scheme, the Bench noted that under Section 15, criminal contempt proceedings may be initiated either (i) by the court on its own motion, (ii) by the Advocate General, or (iii) by any other person with the written consent of the Advocate General. It was undisputed that no such consent had been obtained in the present case.
The Bench further emphasized that although Article 215 gives High Courts wide authority to punish for contempt, the procedure prescribed by law cannot be ignored. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and others and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others, the court observed that procedural safeguards are intended to prevent courts from being burdened with frivolous contempt petitions.
The court noted:
“the complainant can come before the Court, as indeed he has done, requesting the Court to take suo motu action. However, the procedure as approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.N. Duda has to be followed.”
Since the statutory requirements were not met, the Bench allowed the interlocutory application and permitted recall of an earlier order that had overruled the maintainability objection. The High Court held that the petition should not proceed as a criminal contempt case, but should instead be treated as information under the Karnataka High Court Contempt Rules for consideration by the Chief Justice.
While closing the contempt petition for statistical purposes, the Court ordered,
“The Registry shall treat this petition as ‘information’ under Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court proceedings) Rules, 1981, and shall place the same before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders,”
Case Title: New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Prabhat Sharma and Others