The Karnataka High Court has held that a private criminal contempt petition filed without obtaining the consent of the Advocate General is not maintainable in its present form and must instead be treated as ‘information’ for consideration by the Chief Justice under the Karnataka High Court (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T recalled its earlier order overruling office objections on maintainability and closed the contempt petition for statistical purposes.
The case arose from a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. alleging wilful disobedience of a High Court order passed in a writ petition. The petition sought initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against four accused persons under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. During the proceedings, the accused challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it had been filed by a private party without obtaining the prior written consent of the Advocate General.
The complainant argued that the petition merely placed information before the Court for consideration of suo motu action and that the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution was not dependent upon the Advocate General’s consent. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents recognising that information regarding alleged contempt may reach the Court through a petition filed by a private individual.
Examining Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court noted that criminal contempt proceedings may be initiated by the Court on its own motion, on a motion by the Advocate General, or by any other person with the written consent of the Advocate General. The Bench observed that the requirement of consent serves as an important safeguard against frivolous contempt litigation and protects judicial time from being wasted on unmeritorious complaints.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker, (1988) 3 SCC 167 and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254, the Court reiterated that where a private individual seeks action for criminal contempt without obtaining the requisite consent, the petition cannot be treated as a regular contempt case. Rather, it can only serve as a mode of placing information before the Court for consideration of whether suo motu proceedings should be initiated.
Also Read Delhi High Court Restrains Sanjay Dutt-Backed Whisky Brand From Using ‘GODFATHER’ Trademark
The Bench further analysed Rules 5(v), 7 and 8 of the Karnataka High Court (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. While acknowledging that the High Court retains the power to take suo motu action on the basis of information disclosed, it held that such information must first be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Court found that this procedure had not been followed in the present case.
Allowing the interlocutory application filed by the accused, the Court recalled its earlier order dated 24 February 2026 which had overruled office objections on maintainability. It directed the Registry to treat the contempt petition as ‘information’ under Rule 7 of the 1981 Rules and place it before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Consequently, the criminal contempt petition was closed for statistical purposes.
