Dibakar Satpathy v. The Hon'Ble The Chie..., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 19-2-1958, of the Orissa High Court, in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 8 of 1957.,Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1960, decided on 14th day of March, 1961.

Attorney(S)

A.V Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (H.R Khanna and T.M Sen, Advocates, with him).
H.N Sanyal. Additional Solicitor-General of India (B.M Patnaik, Advocate and S.N Andley, J.B Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of Rajinder Narain and Co.. with him).

Judges

Justice J.R. Mudholkar
Justice Raghubar Dayal
Justice K. Subba Rao

Acts

Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act
Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, then serving as Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Orissa, circulated a departmental endorsement dated 19 January 1955 to District Magistrates. The endorsement conveyed the Legal Remembrancer’s and Advocate-General’s opinions that no special authorization was required for Magistrates to take cognizance under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act and instructed that “this may be followed until the matter is carried to the High Court,” effectively advising Magistrates to ignore an existing Orissa High Court ruling reported in AIR 195? Orissa 40. The endorsement bore the appellant’s signature.

When the Orissa High Court learned of this directive, it issued contempt notices to both the appellant and the Legal Remembrancer. Each tendered an apology. The High Court ultimately absolved the Legal Remembrancer but found the appellant guilty of contempt, admonished him, and ordered him to pay costs. The present opinion adjudicates the appellant’s appeal against that finding.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant’s endorsement directing Magistrates to disregard a binding High Court decision constituted contempt of court by interfering with the administration of justice.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab	Held that a special authorization from the District Magistrate is necessary for Magistrates to act under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act.	Identified as the authority followed by the Orissa High Court decision that the appellant instructed Magistrates to ignore.
Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh	Dissented from Raghu Singh, questioning the necessity of such authorization.	Mentioned to show that the Orissa High Court might not have been apprised of this dissent, but its existence did not justify the appellant’s directive to ignore the binding High Court ruling.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that the appellant’s written instruction explicitly urged subordinate Magistrates to disregard an authoritative Orissa High Court judgment. Because High Court decisions are binding on subordinate courts within the State, such a directive amounts to a “flagrant interference with the administration of justice.” The Court highlighted that, despite the Legal Remembrancer’s memorandum being “ambiguous,” the appellant nevertheless issued a categorical direction to ignore judicial authority. Tendered apologies did not erase the contempt, though they were considered in imposing only an admonition and costs. Concluding that the High Court correctly characterized the conduct as contempt, the Court refused to disturb the judgment.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; conviction for contempt affirmed. The appellant remains admonished and liable for costs.

The decision underscores that executive or administrative officers cannot instruct judicial officers to disregard binding court precedents. While it sets no new doctrinal precedent, it reinforces the principle that interference with judicial functions constitutes contempt of court.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Dibakar Satpathy v. The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice And His Companion Justices Of The Orissa High Court And Another

Mudholkar, J.— The appellant who, at the relevant time, was Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Orissa, has been admonished for contempt of court and directed to pay the costs of the proceedings before the High Court of Orissa. The occasion for the institution of contempt proceedings against the appellant was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembrancer and the Advocate-General to the District Magistrates of the Northern Division of Orissa dated 19-1-1955, in which the following endorsement appears:

“I am directed to enclose copies of the opinions of the Legal Remembrancer and of the Advocate-General and to say that the Law Department are of opinion that no special authorization is necessary to empower Magistrates to take cognizance under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. This may be followed until the matter is carried to the High Court in some case, so that the confusion created by the Orissa High Court decision reported in All India Reporter 195] Orissa, page 4.0 might be set at rest. “

The endorsement bears the signature of the appellant.

2. After the attention of the High Court was drawn to the aforesaid endorsement it caused notices to be issued not only to the Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue but also to the Legal Remembrancer of Orissa to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt. Both of them showed cause. The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer but convicted the appellant and admonished him, as already stated. It may be mentioned that both of them had tendered apologies to the High Court. Even so, we think that the appellant was rightly found guilty of contempt of court and admonished as well as required to pay the costs of the proceedings.

3. The point on which the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was sought was whether a. Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate to take conizance of offence under Section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, can be regarded as a Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate as contemplated by Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. In the case referred to in the endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court had taken the view following the decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab that authorisation is necessary. The decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab was dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh and it does not appear that this fact was brought to the notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembrancer to whom the matter was referred submitted a note which, according to the High Court, was “something ambiguous and did not deal with all questions — consequential and ancillary.” In spite of that the appellant, in his endorsement, gave a direction to the Magistrates to ignore the decision of the High Court even though that was binding on them. We have not the least doubt that such a direction is a flagrant interference with the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt of court. Upon this view we dismiss the appeal.

Dibakar Satpathy v. The Hon'Ble The Chie...