The Court did not decide whether the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting the compliance affidavit — that is left for the Special Appeal Bench. Nor did it finally settle when intra-court appeals lie against contempt orders; that question, and the correctness of Ram Kishan Fauji, awaits the larger Bench.
- Case
- Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi & Ors.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1128
- Bench
- Dipankar Datta; Sheel Nagu
- Judgment by
- Dipankar Datta
- Case numbers
- Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 33319 of 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal disposed of without deciding the merits: the appellant may file a Special Appeal within a fortnight; the contempt petition before the Single Judge stays two months; the Ram Kishan Fauji reference is placed before the Chief Justice of India.
The order
On 14 October 2026, in a reportable order authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, the Supreme Court addressed a question it described as no longer res integra yet arising 'with regularity' and calling 'for further clarity and, if possible, a conclusive determination': when can an order passed by a Single Judge on a contempt application be challenged in an intra-court appeal?
The order answers the immediate case without finally settling the law. The alleged contemnor — aggrieved by an interim order dated 3 September 2026 of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Contempt Application (C) No. 2648 of 2026 — may present a Special Appeal within a fortnight, to be decided on its own merits. The contempt petition before the Single Judge is stayed for two months. And on the deeper question, the Court recorded its 'respectful disagreement' with the enunciation of law in Ram Kishan Fauji and directed the Registry to place its opinion before the Chief Justice of India for orders on the administrative side — the reference remains pending before the appropriate Bench.
The contempt behind the appeal
The contempt application arose from a writ court's order dated 17 March 2026 allowing the respondents' writ petition: the Office Memorandum dated 28 July 2020 was quashed and the State directed to accommodate the petitioner-applicants on vacant posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. When compliance was alleged to be wanting, the Single Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the compliance affidavit containing the order of rejection passed in purported compliance — holding that the reasons given were not justified, that the 2019 writ-court order directing accommodation was still intact (neither set aside, modified nor stayed), and that the State was under obligation to appoint the applicants.
The Single Judge listed the case on 17 September 2026 and directed that, failing compliance, the officer concerned — the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. — appear in person 'for the purposes of proceeding further in the matter which includes framing of charges.' The alleged contemnor approached the Supreme Court against this interim order.
The legal questions
The order works through a layered doctrinal history. It revisits what 'civil proceeding' covers — recalling the Constitution Bench in S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas (AIR 1965 SC 1818), which held that contempt proceedings 'may not fall within the classification of proceedings, civil or criminal' — and the three-Judge Bench in P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd. ((2021) 6 SCC 258) on civil versus criminal contempt: civil contempt enforces a party's personal right through punishment in the public interest, while criminal contempt protects the administration of justice from pollution.
Against that backdrop, the order examines the existing delineation — notably in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank (Chunilal Nanda) — of when a Single Judge's contempt order is amenable to intra-court appeal, and where Ram Kishan Fauji fits: the order construes Ram Kishan Fauji as excluding certain contempt orders from Letters Patent jurisdiction, and respectfully disagrees with that enunciation 'in this narrow but important compass', framing questions for a larger Bench on whether Ram Kishan Fauji should be revisited.
What the Court did
On the immediate case, the Court was 'not persuaded to entertain and examine' the merits: whether the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting the compliance affidavit 'is a matter that the appellant can well urge the Bench having determination to hear Special Appeals to examine.' The appellant may present a Special Appeal within a fortnight of the order; if presented, it is to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The appeal before the Supreme Court 'stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms' — but the reference on the Ram Kishan Fauji question 'shall, however, remain pending for consideration by the appropriate Bench.' For two months from the order's date, the contempt petition before the Single Judge stays. The opinion is to be placed by the Registry before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative orders.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is valuable for two reasons beyond its result. First, it demonstrates the technique of deciding without deciding: the Court resolves the litigant's immediate problem (a forum to be heard) while deliberately refusing to pronounce on the deeper jurisdictional question, parking that for a larger Bench. That is not evasion — it is institutional discipline by a two-Judge Bench that doubts an earlier two-Judge Bench's reasoning but cannot overrule it.
Second, watch the 'respectful disagreement' device. The Court does not purport to overrule Ram Kishan Fauji; it records disagreement 'in this narrow but important compass' and routes the question to the CJI administratively. For judiciary-exam answers on contempt appellate remedies, the current position to state is: Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act governs statutory appeals; intra-court appeals against Single Judges' contempt orders remain governed by the Chunilal Nanda delineation as construed here — with the Ram Kishan Fauji correctness question now pending before a larger Bench.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court decline to decide the merits itself, even while permitting the appellant to file a Special Appeal?
- What is the significance of the Court's 'respectful disagreement' with Ram Kishan Fauji, and what procedural step did it direct as a consequence?
- The contempt petition is stayed for two months. What does that stay — and what does it not — decide?
