High Court Decision on Advocate General Consent in Contempt Cases
The Karnataka High Court has issued an important ruling regarding the necessity of obtaining written consent from the Advocate General (AG) for initiating criminal contempt proceedings. The court clarified that if such consent is absent, the petition should be submitted to the Chief Justice to consider the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings. This decision came in the matter titled New Space Research and Technologies v. Prabhat Sharma & Ors.
A bench consisting of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T provided clarity on this complex legal procedure. The bench stated, “This case, at the outset, points out that the complainant has filed the complaint under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 3 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court proceedings) Rules, 1981. Such petitions should be directed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, who may then decide on the appropriate course of action.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from a 2024 lawsuit filed by a company seeking to prevent the unauthorized use of its confidential information. The company requested a perpetual injunction and the appointment of a Court Commissioner for a search and seizure operation at the defendant’s premises. After the trial court denied this request, the company successfully petitioned the High Court for a writ to search and seize data from the respondents’ premises. However, the respondents refused to comply, obstructing the Court Commissioner.
Following the obstruction, the Court Commissioner reported the difficulties encountered. This led the High Court to dispose of the writ petition and instruct the trial judge to address the report. Subsequently, the complainant company filed a contempt petition, which raised questions about the maintainability due to the lack of AG consent.
Legal Precedents and Procedures
The Karnataka High Court leaned on a Supreme Court precedent to assert that petitions lacking AG consent should be reviewed by the Chief Justice. The court emphasized that even without AG consent, petitioners could approach the Chief Justice to request suo motu action, provided the procedure approved by the Supreme Court in the case of PN Duda is followed.
More Read
The court highlighted that although Section 15 mandates AG consent, it does not preclude a petitioner from seeking the court’s intervention directly. The bench noted that the proper procedure involves placing the petition before the Chief Justice, who, in consultation with other judges, will decide on whether to pursue the matter.
The court ordered the Registry to present the petition as information to the Chief Justice and subsequently closed the contempt petition. It also recalled a previous order that had ruled out office objections regarding the petition’s maintainability.
The complainant was represented by Advocate Angad Kamath, while Senior Advocate Dhananjaya Joshi and Advocates Kavitha Damodaran and Rahul Krishna Reddy P acted for the respondents.
