Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria has held that a High Court retains the authority to hear and decide a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with its own directions, even where the original order has merged with a Supreme Court order that merely affirmed it without issuing fresh directions. The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger does not divest the High Court of its contempt jurisdiction in such circumstances. The Madras High Court had declined to entertain the contempt petition on the ground that its earlier order had lost independent existence upon merger. Setting aside that view, the Supreme Court restored the contempt petition for adjudication on merits.

The appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing a contempt petition as not maintainable on the ground of the Doctrine of Merger. The appellant had earlier filed a writ petition which, along with connected matters, was disposed of by a common order issuing directions to the Corporation of Chennai to consider absorption of certain identified persons against existing or future vacancies in order of seniority before appointing fresh candidates. Alleging non-compliance with those directions, the appellant-initiated contempt proceedings before the High Court.

Also Read: Co-Extensive Liability Under Contract Act, No Statutory Bar In IBC To Initiate Parallel CIRP Against Corporate Debtor And Guarantor For Same Debt: Supreme Court

The High Court closed the contempt petition without examining it on merits, holding that once the earlier order had been taken in appeal and leave was granted by the Supreme Court, the High Court’s order stood merged with that of the Supreme Court, thereby depriving it of jurisdiction. The appellant contended that in the absence of fresh reasons by the Supreme Court, the High Court’s judgment retained independent existence. The respondent relied on precedents concerning the Doctrine of Merger to support the High Court’s view.

The Court stated, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the material on record together with the law laid down in V. Senthur & Anr., Kunhayammed & Ors. and Khoday Distilleries Limited & Ors. (Supra), we are of the considered view that the High Court ought to have entertained the Contempt Petition on merits.”

On the applicability of merger, the Court observed, “It is thus fairly settled that once leave to appeal has been granted and Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked, the order passed in appeal would attract the Doctrine of Merger. The order may be of reversal, modifications or merely affirmations.”

The Bench further stated, “Thus, the first submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is answered in negative that the Doctrine of Merger would not apply in the present case.”

Addressing contempt jurisdiction, the Court recorded, “Despite the above, we are not convinced with the reasoning of the High Court that once the order passed by the High Court has merged with the order passed by the Supreme Court, the Contempt Petition would not be maintainable before the High Court, for the reason that the Contempt Jurisdiction is independent of the applicability of the Doctrine of Merger.”

It continued, “In our considered view, if the Supreme Court has not issued any fresh directions in the matter, and has merely affirmed the order passed by the High Court, what would remain to be executed is the directions issued by the High Court and it cannot be said that there is no independent existence of the order of the High Court for the purpose of invoking Contempt jurisdiction.”

The Court further observed, “Merely because the order has been affirmed, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 12 or 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India does not cease to operate to punish the contemnor for disobedience of the order of the High Court.”

It also stated, “If it is held otherwise, Supreme Court would be flooded with Contempt Petitions because in whichever case the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal by non-speaking order, by merely affirming the order of the High Court, the parties would be driven to Supreme Court for filing Contempt Petition.”

Finally, the Court observed, “Such cannot be the intent and the legal provisions cannot be used to coerce a litigant to approach the Supreme Court without resorting to filing a Contempt Petition in the High Court.”

Also Read: "Jaane Kitne Dinon Ke Baad Chand Nikla" Remark On Woman Government School Principal's Photo Does Not Meet Obscenity Or Sexual Harassment; Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR

The Court directed, “In the above view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the Contempt Petition preferred in the Madras High Court, which shall be heard and decided on its own merits. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Contempt Petition. The Civil Appeal is allowed, accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Case Title: United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 204
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20428 of 2023)
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria