Contempt jurisdiction should be exercised with circumspection, says Top Court while refusing to take contempt action for alleged misappropriation of funds by Debutter Board

Read Judgment: Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya vs. Riju Prasad Sarma & Others

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 17, 2021:  While stating that no case was made out to take action under Article 129 of the Constitution r/w the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court has opined that the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. 

While accepting that the report of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, prima facie, establishes misappropriation of funds by the Debutter Board, a Division Bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka observed that even in the Judgment dated July 7, 2015, there was no direction issued to pay the money which had been allegedly misappropriated. 

The reason was that the prima facie observation about misappropriation was based on the view expressed in the report, however, what was observed in the said report was not conclusive, added the Bench. 

The observation came pursuant to a petition by Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya (Petitioner) invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India r/w the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against Riju Prasad Sarma & Others (Respondents) for committing breaches of the directions contained in the Judgment of this Court dated July 7, 2015 in the case of Riju Prasad Sarma and Others v. State of Assam and Others.

Going by the background of the case, the case made out in the contempt petitions is that the petitioner is the elected Dolois representing members of Bordeuri Samaj of Kamakhya Devalaya, and it is the case of petitioner that right of Bordeuri Samaj to manage religious affairs of Kamakhya Temple has been recognized from time immemorial. It is pointed out that in the year 1998, a self-styled body in the name and style of Kamakhya Debutter Board was formed by Respondents and that they have illegally usurped the power that has been historically vested in the office of Dolois. 

The first grievance in the contempt petitions is that the possession of the immovable properties has not been handed over to Bordeuri Samaj by the Respondents. Similarly, the second grievance is that various movable properties of the Temple, have not been handed over to the petitioner. The third grievance is that though as per the statement of accounts submitted on behalf of Debutter Board, it was holding surplus cash amount of not less than Rupees eleven crores, which belonged to the Deity, it has not been paid. Lastly, a grievance is made that books of accounts pertaining to the Temple have not been handed over to the petitioner. 

After considering the submissions and the circumstances, the Top Court found from the perusal of the order dated January 31, 2020 that there was no opportunity granted to the parties to file any objections to the report. 

It cannot be said that as the respondents did not object to the report, they have accepted the liability to pay the amount of Rs.7,62,03,498/-, and moreover, the observations in the report cannot be treated as concluded findings, added the Court. 

The Apex Court went on to observe that, even assuming that the Judgment dated July 7, 2015 includes a direction to pay money, there is no adjudication made to decide what the extent of liability is.  

“Perusal of the Judgment shows that there is no discussion therein about the liability of the respondent nos.1 to 4 to pay any specific amount. Paragraph 73 refers to premises and other properties of Kamakhya Temple. However, there is no finding recorded that any particular amount is payable by the respondent nos.1 to 4 to the petitioner”, observed the Court. 

Hence, the Division Bench disposed of the contempt petitions.