“Wilful Obstruction of Court-Appointed Commissioners Constitutes Criminal Contempt”: Delhi High Court crystallises the ‘Knowledge-Plus-Obstruction’ Test

1. Introduction

In Court on its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors. (2025 DHC 7206-DB), the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, acting suo motu, dealt with a brazen mob attack on eleven Advocate Commissioners (Local Commissioners, “LCs”) who were executing an Anton Piller-type commission in Kolkata to seize counterfeit Samsung products. The attack—resulting in serious injuries to commissioners and policemen—posed an acute threat to the administration of justice. The Bench, comprising Subramonium Prasad & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ., invoked its criminal contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“CCA”), to examine whether the shop-owners and their associates could be punished for frustrating the execution of a judicial order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court identified 12 respondents (shop proprietors and their attendants) whose acts, accompanied by knowledge of the Court’s order, were “wilful” attempts to obstruct justice.
• Applying the twin requirements of knowledge and wilful interference, the Bench differentiated them from 18 other respondents—daily wagers, by-standers, etc.—against whom contempt notices were discharged.
• Each contemnor was sentenced to:
  • Simple imprisonment of one day in Tihar Jail; and
  • A fine of ₹2,000.
• The Court expressly limited its findings to contempt proceedings, leaving the criminal trial under IPC offences untouched.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Bench relied heavily on three Supreme Court authorities to delineate contempt parameters:

1. Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly (2002) 5 SCC 352 – emphasised that contempt jurisdiction is to safeguard the majesty of law.
2. Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj (2014) 16 SCC 204 – laid down the requirement that disobedience must be “wilful”, meaning “knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate”. The judgment was quoted extensively for the definition of “wilful”.
3. U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association (2022) 1 SCC 101 – reiterated that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal with a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

These cases furnished the doctrinal backdrop for the Bench to craft the “Knowledge-Plus-Obstruction” test, holding that mere participation in a mob—without awareness of the court mandate—does not ipso facto attract criminal contempt.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning progressed through four logical stages:

1. Identification of the protected judicial function. The seizure commission was part of pending civil proceedings; interference amounted to interference with administration of justice.
2. Extraction of the governing legal standard. From the cited precedents, the Bench distilled two conjunctive elements: (a) the contemnor’s knowledge of the court order, and (b) a wilful act that obstructs or tends to obstruct justice.
3. Evidentiary calibration. • Injured LCs’ affidavits, • Police investigation reports, and • Test Identification Parades (TIPs) were cross-mapped against each respondent.
   Respondents without identifiable roles or with plausible alibi corroborated by absence of knowledge were given the benefit of doubt.
4. Proportional sanction. Recognising first-time offenders and the quasi-criminal nature, the Bench opted for “symbolic yet stern” punishment— short incarceration plus fine—rather than long imprisonment. Apologies were recorded but held insufficient to exonerate.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Establishes the “Knowledge-Plus-Obstruction” Test: Private individuals can be held in criminal contempt when they (i) know of a subsisting judicial order and (ii) wilfully impede its execution. This clarifies liability in mass-obstruction scenarios.
• Protection of Court-Appointed Commissioners: The ruling underscores that LCs enjoy the same sanctity as the court itself when acting within the scope of their commission. Future assaults risk contempt irrespective of geography (Delhi order executed in Kolkata).
• Deterrence through even Minimal Custodial Sentences: While the jail term is only one day, its symbolic value sends a message that the judiciary will not hesitate to use incarceration for contemptuous violence.
• Guidance for Police & IP Enforcement: Emphasises coordination between commissioners, litigants and local police; failure to provide adequate protection may attract scrutiny.
• Interface with Parallel Criminal Proceedings: The Bench carefully segregates contempt findings from IPC trials, a roadmap for future benches to avoid prejudicing criminal defences.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Criminal Contempt: Conduct that “scandalises” the court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice (Sec. 2(c), CCA).
• Wilful Disobedience: Requires intentional breach with knowledge of the order; accidental or negligent acts are insufficient.
• Anton Piller (Search & Seizure) Commission: An ex-parte order allowing entry, inspection and seizure to prevent destruction of infringing goods/evidence.
• Test Identification Parade (TIP): Pre-trial procedure where witnesses attempt to identify suspects, strengthening evidentiary links.
• Superdari: Release of seized property to a custodian (often the defendant) on an undertaking to produce it as and when required by court.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Court on its Own Motion v. Obsession Naaz fortifies judicial authority beyond court premises, extending its protective mantle over officers of the court executing mandates anywhere in India. By articulating and applying the ‘Knowledge-Plus-Obstruction’ test, the Bench struck a judicious balance—punishing only those proven to have knowingly sabotaged the commission, while sparing by-standers. The ruling is poised to serve as a precedent in:

1. Intellectual-property enforcement actions where raids are vulnerable to local hostility;
2. Any scenario involving obstruction of LCs, Court Receivers, or court-appointed surveyors;
3. Clarifying evidentiary thresholds for contempt vis-à-vis mass incidents.

Ultimately, the judgment upholds the foundational premise that “the wheels of justice must not be clogged by mob rule”, reaffirming public confidence in the judiciary’s capacity to protect its processes and its officers.