Therefore, if the court concerned, in exercise of its discretion, does not take any action for its alleged contempt or accept the apology rendered by the alleged contemnor, for certain reasons, the appellate court would not ordinarily substitute its own opinion and direct that court to proceed in the matter necessarily or reject the apology so rendered. This general principle of practice and propriety, as to non-interference in the discretionary orders of the High Court declining initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors, was enunciated by a five member larger bench of this Court in the case of WAPDA v. Chairman N.I.R.C.
What is also important to note is that, the said general principle is not absolute and, like other such principles, admits exceptions. Supreme Court has time and again held that, though discretionary orders passed by the High Courts are not generally interfered with but they are not immune from scrutiny, if they are found to be arbitrary, perverse, or against the settled principles of law.
It would also be pertinent to observe here that the ultimate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution to grant leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, order or sentence of a High Court is not circumscribed by any limitation by the Constitution. The principles governing the exercise of this jurisdiction are of self-restraint, settled by the Court itself, keeping in view the considerations of propriety and practice. Supreme Court thus ordinarily exercises its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, and grants the leave to appeal, as held by a six-member larger bench of this Court in Noora v. State, in cases where some serious question of law is prima facie made out or some case of grave miscarriage of justice is established either by reason of the fact that the findings sought to be impugned could not have been arrived at by any reasonable person or that the findings are so ridiculous, shocking or improbable that to uphold such a finding would amount to a travesty of justice. Therefore, only when the finding of a High Court refusing to initiate proceedings for civil contempt is arbitrary, perverse, ridiculous or improbable, can the same be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
Contempt of Court/Non-compliance of Court Order C.P.34-Q/2019 Abdul Baqi and others v. Haji Khan Muhammad and others Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 20-05-2022
0 comments:
Post a Comment