The Supreme Court of India recently underscored the serious implications of willful disobedience or breach of assurances made by lawyers on their clients’ behalf to the court. Such actions, the apex court clarified, would squarely fall under the category of
“civil contempt”
as defined by Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
The court further elaborated that while undertakings provided directly to the court are subject to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, those given as part of an agreement or settlement to another party do not. Additionally, in situations where property is transferred pendente lite (during the pendency of a legal case), the court, while examining these transfers in contempt proceedings, possesses the authority to declare such transactions as void.
This power is exercised to uphold the majesty and sanctity of the law. Beyond merely penalizing the contemnor for their defiant actions, the court might also issue directives to ensure that any benefits derived from such defiance, like property transfers, are entirely nullified.
The court also emphasized that beneficiaries of any such defiant transaction lack the right to be heard in contempt proceedings, even if they assert themselves as bona fide purchasers of the property without prior notice. The court’s stance is clear: contempt is a matter strictly between the court and the contemnor, and third parties have no role in it.
This landmark ruling serves as a stern reminder of the consequences of defying court orders and the paramount importance of upholding the sanctity of legal proceedings.
