$~22. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 890/2012 & CM 2144/2013. % Judgment dated 12.02.2013 TARUN GUPTA Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.Nagmani Roy, Adv. versus DR. D. K. SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Rishan Kaushik, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.
(ORAL) 1. By the present contempt petition, filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 6635/2012 on 22.11.2012.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, who are the Doctors at AIIMS hospital, have failed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 22.11.2012. Counsel further submits that in terms of the directions passed in W.P.(C) 6635/2012 on 22.11.2012, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Superintendent of respondent no.2 on the scheduled date and time with a copy of the said order, however, instead of complying with the directions contained in the said order and providing the petitioner with the necessary medical treatment, the respondents have made filthy comments and also humiliated the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the respondents, who were treating the petitioner, have not performed their duties and also did not provid appropriate medical attention to the petitioner, and, thus, the respondents have willfully violated the order dated 22.11.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has denied all the allegations made against the respondents and submits that all the allegations made by the petitioner are false and baseless. Counsel further submits that it is the petitioner, who was not cooperating with the Doctors.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the status report filed by the respondent. In the status report filed, it is stated that the petitioner had approached the respondents for medical treatment, however, after consultation with the Doctors he intermittently left the hospital without information or prior permission. It is further stated that the petitioner had refused to adopt the course prescribed by the Doctors, also threatened the Doctors and instead sought selective treatment at the drop of the hat about the pendency of the present contempt petition. It is also stated that the petitioner has refused to give his consent for a procedure and he is adamant only on the surgery to be performed, and it is in these circumstances, that the respondents were hesitant in going ahead with the normal course of treatment of the petitioner.
5. It has been repeatedly held that the power to punish for contempt is a special power, which is to be exercised with care and caution and should be used sparingly by the courts on being fully satisfied with regard to the contemptuous conduct of a party. It would be useful to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another Versus Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others 2002 Cri.L.J.
2935: The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. Since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the country. The power to punish for contempt of courts is a special power vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in mind that the Court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate Court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes leveled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the status report filed by the respondents, I find no grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents, however, having regard to the illness of the petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that medical profession is known to be a noble profession, it is hoped and expected that the Doctors at AIIMS Hospital will perform their duties in the best interest of the patient, subject to petitioner cooperating with the Doctors and complying with all the formalities as required.
7. Accordingly, present contempt petition and application stand dismissed. Notice of contempt stands discharged. G.S.SISTANI, J FEBRUARY 12 2013 msr