The Allahabad High Court decreed that contempt of court orders from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) are exclusively appealable before the Supreme Court. This directive establishes a clear protocol for challenging contempt rulings, enhancing legal clarity and consistency.
UTTAR PRADESH: Recently, The Allahabad High Court observed the appeal process for orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, can only be appealed to the Supreme Court and not the High Court.
A bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Donadi Ramesh noted that since contempt proceedings under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, handled by a panel of at least two members, any orders passed under this section can only be appealed before the Supreme Court.
The court emphasized that orders or decisions of the Tribunal under the Act, 1971, are appealable solely to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of the order.
Advocate Pramod Kumar Pandey represented the petitioner in the case.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, of 1985, grants the CAT the power to punish for contempt of itself and incorporates the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, of 1971, in this regard.
The matter before the High Court initiates from a previous CAT order that granted the petitioners positions as regular assistant medical officers along with associated benefits. Alleging non-compliance by the authorities, the petitioners filed a contempt petition before the CAT.
However, the CAT found no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents and decided to close the contempt proceedings. This decision was challenged in the High Court through a writ petition, which raised a preliminary objection regarding the admissibility of the petition.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, citing Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in conjunction with Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The High Court clarified that there is a distinction between orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 14(1) of the 1985 Act and orders passed under Section 17 of the 1971 Act.
While there is no statutory remedy of appeal against orders passed under Section 14(1), appeals are allowed against orders passed under Section 17 as per Section 19 of the Act, 1971.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Orders Lawyer to Apologize for Contempt
The court stated that orders or decisions of the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt are appealable as a matter of right under Section 19 of the Act, 1971. Appeals lie before a bench of at least two judges in cases where the contempt order is passed by a single judge and to the Supreme Court in cases where the order is passed by the bench.
The High Court clarified that although it has jurisdiction under Article 226/227 for orders passed under Section 14(1), orders passed under Section 17 are exclusively appealable to the Supreme Court according to Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Court dismissed the plea, noting that Section 19 of the Act, 1971, provides for appeals, and by virtue of Section 17 of the Act, 1985, the term ‘High Court’ should be read as ‘Tribunal’. Therefore, any order or decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt can be appealed under Section 19 of the Act exclusively to the Supreme Court.
CASE TITLE: Brajendra Singh Chauhan Ors Vs. CAT Ors
