“Once Found Guilty, Guilt Stands” – The Supreme Court Re‑affirms the Non‑Reviewability of a Coordinate Bench’s Contempt Finding

1. Introduction

Rajan Chadha & Anr. v. Sanjay Arora (2025 INSC 546) presented the Supreme Court of India with a narrow yet important procedural question: Can a Single Judge of a High Court re‑examine and overturn an earlier coordinate Single Judge’s categorical finding that a party is guilty of contempt, absent an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?

Behind this question lay a commercial fallout among shareholders of “RBT Private Ltd.”. Arbitration proceedings, a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and parallel contempt litigation resulted in two conflicting orders of the Delhi High Court:

5 December 2023 Order – Single Judge holds the respondent guilty of contempt and grants four weeks to purge it.
3 July 2024 Order – Another Single Judge, after roster change, discharges the show‑cause notice, stating that no wilful and deliberate disobedience existed.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, which has now clarified the limits of intra‑court procedural power in contempt matters.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (Bench: B.R. Gavai & Augustine George Masih, JJ.) held:

Once a Single Judge has recorded a finding of guilt in contempt, the matter stands at the stage of punishment or discharge; a subsequent coordinate Bench cannot revisit guilt.
If the contemnor disputes the earlier finding, the sole statutory remedy is an intra‑court appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The 3 July 2024 order was therefore without jurisdiction, contrary to judicial propriety, and amounted to the later Judge sitting in appeal over a coordinate Bench’s order.
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, restored the contempt proceedings to the stage left on 5 December 2023, and remitted the matter to the High Court to decide punishment/discharge.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited / Relevant Authorities

Although the Supreme Court judgment is concise, it necessarily draws upon (and implicitly reinforces) a body of precedent on two overlapping themes: (i) contempt procedure, and (ii) discipline among coordinate Benches.

Midnapore Peoples’ Co‑op. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399 – Distinguishes between civil contempt (remedial) and criminal contempt (punitive). The present case, resting on wilful disobedience (Section 2(b)), follows the civil‑contempt line but underscores that a finding of guilt is quasi‑criminal, triggering appeal rights.
State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, (1979) 2 SCC 236; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 – Both stress that a coordinate Bench cannot overrule or review a decision of another coordinate Bench; only a larger Bench or appellate forum may do so.
Jaipur Municipal Corporation v. C.L. Mishra, (2005) 8 SCC 423 – Reiterates that appeals under Section 19 are mandatory once a contempt conviction is recorded; High Courts cannot invoke inherent powers to bypass that route.
Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, (1974) 1 SCC 374 – Emphasises the special nature of contempt jurisdiction and the need for procedural safeguards akin to criminal trials, which include appellate review, not intra‑court alterations.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted by the Supreme Court

Stage of Proceedings
  • 5 Dec 2023 order = finding of contempt already made.
  • Next stage = whether contemnor has purged contempt; if not, what punishment is warranted.
  • Therefore, factual/ legal determination of “guilt” was functus officio for any later coordinate Bench.
Jurisdictional Bar
• Second Single Judge lacked jurisdiction to revisit guilt.
• Doing so equated to an unauthorised review, contrary to Order XLVII CPC and Section 114 CPC (inapplicable to contempt anyway) and also to High Court Rules.
Statutory Scheme of Appeals
  • Sections 12 & 13 deal with punishment/apology.
  • Section 19 provides an appeal as of right against any order or decision of a Single Judge in contempt.
  • Remedy lies only via Section 19, not via a revisit by a coordinate Bench.
Judicial Propriety & Discipline
• Comity requires coordinate Benches to honour each other’s binding orders.
• A deviation undermines institutional credibility.

3.3 Potential Impact

The judgment plugs an increasingly common procedural loophole where, due to roster changes, litigants attempt a “second bite at the cherry” before a fresh coordinate Bench:

High Court Practice – Registry & Benches must treat a contempt conviction as final for that level; subsequent listings are restricted to sentence/discharge.
Arbitration‑IBC Overlap – Though the Supreme Court avoided merits, it confirmed that IBC moratorium (Section 14) does not bar contempt against individual directors for earlier undertakings. The ruling thus preserves the efficacy of interim measures in arbitration even when insolvency intervenes.
Civil/Commercial Litigation – Parties will be dissuaded from “forum‑shopping” within the same court. The decision strengthens finality and predictability.
Statutory Appeals – By underscoring Section 19, the Court has reminded bar & bench that special statutes control procedure; inherent or procedural improvisations are impermissible.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Coordinate Bench: Two or more Benches (often Single Judges) of the same High Court, possessing equal strength and authority.
Purging Contempt: The act of complying with the underlying court order or offering an unconditional, sincere apology so that the court considers the contempt “cured”.
Section 14 Moratorium (IBC): Automatic stay on proceedings against the corporate debtor once CIRP is admitted. It does not extend to individual promoters/directors unless specifically provided.
Section 19 Appeal: Statutory right of appeal to a Division Bench (or the Supreme Court when the contempt is by a High Court) against any order or decision of a Single Judge in contempt matters, whether it is interlocutory or final.
Functus Officio: A Latin maxim meaning a court/authority has exhausted its jurisdiction over a matter; it cannot reopen or alter its decision except to correct clerical errors.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora re‑establishes a crisp procedural rule: a coordinate Bench of a High Court cannot unsettle an earlier finding of contempt; only an appellate forum under Section 19 can. This doctrinal clarity:

Safeguards finality and judicial discipline within High Courts.
Ensures contemnors follow proper appellate routes instead of seeking reconsideration through roster changes.
Preserves the integrity of interim orders in arbitration even where insolvency proceedings loom.

Going forward, courts and practitioners must treat a contempt finding as akin to a conviction—unalterable at the same hierarchical level and challengeable only by the statutory appeal. The decision thus fortifies both the rule of law and the orderly administration of justice.