Calcutta High Court: Doctrine Of Merger Bars Contempt Jurisdiction | High Court Cannot Enforce Orders Merged With Supreme Court Decisions | Contempt Petition Held Not Maintainable And Dismiss
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed a contempt petition on grounds of non-maintainability. The court found that its earlier judgment dated April 22, 2024, had merged with subsequent orders of the Supreme Court dated April 3, 2025, April 8, 2025, and April 17, 2025. Consequently, the High Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings for directions that now stand as directives of the Supreme Court.
The court recorded, "We are unable to subscribe to the view that, doctrine of merger is not absolute and that, in certain circumstances, the High Court can entertain an application for contempt of an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, notwithstanding the order of the High Court having merged." CPAN 621 of 2025 was accordingly dismissed.
The contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with the directions issued by the Calcutta High Court in its judgment dated April 22, 2024, passed in WPA 30649 of 2016 and other connected matters. Petitioners claimed that the directions not modified or set aside by the Supreme Court were still binding and enforceable through the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that, "petitioners are seeking implementation of such directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 which have not been set aside or modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court." It was argued that contempt is an equitable mode of execution and hence maintainable before the High Court.
In contrast, the respondents challenged the maintainability of the contempt proceedings at the threshold. Counsel for contemnor no. 1 submitted that the entire judgment dated April 22, 2024 had merged with the Supreme Court’s orders, thereby extinguishing the High Court’s authority to execute or enforce it. Reliance was placed on Article 129, 141, 142, and 215 of the Constitution and several decisions including Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Balbir Singh v. Baldev Singh (2025) 3 SCC 543.
It was contended that, "the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 of the High Court has merged with the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court which has jurisdiction to consider an application for contempt of the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025, is the Hon’ble Supreme Court."
The petitioners countered this position by citing decisions including Ram Phal & Anr. v. B. S. Bhalla & Ors. (2004) 73 DRJ 528 and Mariamma Thomas v. Vijayanand I.A.S. (2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41310), arguing that contempt petitions were entertained by High Courts even after merger, and that contempt is distinct from review or appeal.
The Calcutta High Court analysed whether a merged judgment remains enforceable through contempt by the original court. After considering various precedents, including Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Ratan Lal Singh (1974) 2 SCC 453 and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376, the Court held that:
"On merger of the judgment and order of the High Court with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it ceases to exist for the purpose of a review before the High Court, then, and on the parity of the same reasoning, it ceases to exist for the High Court to enforce it through a contempt petition."
The Court observed that the original judgment had merged fully into the three Supreme Court orders dated April 3, April 8, and April 17, 2025. Specifically:
- Direction (viii) of the High Court's order was expressly set aside by the Supreme Court on April 8, 2025.
- On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court extended the timeline for the fresh selection process and permitted certain teachers to work until December 2025.
- On April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of appointments and mandated that tainted candidates must refund remuneration received.
The High Court recorded, "the ultimate writ was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore a contempt petition would not lie before this Court to enforce such order, unless specifically empowered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to do so."
The judgment also stressed that in the absence of provisions equivalent to Order 21 CPC for writ jurisdiction, contempt serves as an equitable remedy. However, this cannot override the doctrine of merger. The Bench explained:
"We are of the view that, such provisions of the Constitution cannot be read to mean that, a High Court has the power to punish for contempt of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, without the Hon’ble Supreme Court requesting it to do so, more so in view of the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution of India."
The Division Bench held: "We answer the second issue by holding that a contempt petition is not maintainable before the High Court to implement an order which merged with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court."
As a result: "CPAN 621 of 2025 is dismissed as not maintainable."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Advocate; Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Arka Nandi, Advocate; Mr. Sagar Dey, Advocate; Mr. Sandwip Sutradhar, Advocate; Mr. Baibhav Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Senior Advocate; Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Senior Standing Counsel; Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Advocate; Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Advocate; Ms. Mahima Cholera, Advocate; Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Senior Advocate; Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Senior Advocate; Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Advocate; Mr. Supriya Dubey, Advocate; Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Advocate; Mr. Bibek Dutta, Advocate; Ms. Keya Panja, Advocate.
For the CBI: Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Deputy Solicitor General of India.
Case Title: Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. Vs. Shri Binod Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Ors.
Case Number: CPAN 621 of 2025 in WPA 30649 of 2016
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
[Read/Download order]
