30-07-2023 : The Supreme Court has emphasized that courts must exercise contempt jurisdiction with caution and not be swayed by emotions or hypersensitivity. In a recent case, the Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order that had revoked a doctor’s license for contempt of court, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in such matters.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sanjay Karol, underscored that the contempt jurisdiction vested in the courts is intended solely to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. It is not meant to be wielded impulsively but rather in a judicious manner.
The specific case involved a doctor whose medical license had been suspended as a penalty in a contempt proceeding initiated against him for failing to remove an unauthorized construction. However, the Supreme Court opined that contempt of court and professional misconduct are separate offenses with distinct legal frameworks.
While a medical practitioner found guilty of contempt of court may also face consequences for professional misconduct, the severity and nature of the contemptuous conduct must be considered. Contempt of court falls under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, while professional misconduct is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively quashed the decision of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that the doctor’s medical license cannot be suspended as a penalty in a contempt case. The doctor had already complied with the demolition order, except for a small portion that would compromise the structural integrity of the legally constructed building.
The Court directed the doctor to provide an undertaking to the concerned High Court, assuring the completion of remedial construction to ensure the soundness of the existing building and the subsequent demolition of the remaining unauthorized construction within a reasonable time.
This decision reinforces the importance of fair and balanced application of contempt jurisdiction by the courts. It highlights the need for careful consideration of the circumstances and the gravity of the contemptuous conduct before imposing any penalties. Courts must act prudently and uphold the principles of justice while dealing with contempt cases, ensuring that the judicial system’s integrity remains intact.
The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a reminder to all courts to exercise contempt jurisdiction judiciously, avoiding emotional impulses and upholding the sanctity of the judicial process.