Single Judge's Contempt Proceedings Upheld Despite Division Bench's Affirmation of Order
In a significant judgment delivered on March 4, 2026, Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, reaffirmed the independent jurisdiction of a Single Judge to hear contempt proceedings, even when the original order has been affirmed by a Division Bench. The decision came during the hearing of contempt petitions filed by Rama Ravikumar against K.J. Praveenkumar IAS and others, relating to the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Deepathoon.
The petitions were filed after a prohibitory order issued by the District Collector of Madurai on December 3, 2025, allegedly impeded the implementation of a court order allowing symbolic prayers at the temple located on a hillock. During the proceedings, objections were raised concerning the maintainability of the contempt petitions, citing the doctrine of merger. This doctrine implies that when a higher court affirms a lower court's order, the original order merges into the higher court's judgment, potentially impacting jurisdiction for contempt proceedings.
However, Justice Swaminathan rejected this argument, emphasizing the Supreme Court's recent ruling in "United Labour Federation v. Gagandeep Singh Bedy (2026 INSC 204)," which clarified that the contempt jurisdiction is independent of the doctrine of merger. The Supreme Court had stated that if no new directions are issued by the higher authority, the lower court's order retains its independent existence for contempt purposes. Thus, the Single Judge's order, affirmed by the Division Bench, remained enforceable for contempt proceedings.
Justice Swaminathan further highlighted that the contempt petitions were not solely based on the order dated December 1, 2025, but also included violations of subsequent orders. The court found that the Madurai City Police had resisted implementing the court's directives, leading to the maintainability of the contempt petitions.
Acknowledging the need for further deliberation, the court adjourned the proceedings to March 18, 2026, while warning the contemnors of potential charges if an appropriate response is not received. Emphasizing the principle of equality before the law, Justice Swaminathan cautioned against reckless comments by dignitaries, stating that no one is immune from the law's reach.
This judgment reinforces the independent power of Single Judges to conduct contempt proceedings, even when their orders are affirmed by higher benches, ensuring accountability and adherence to judicial directives.
Bottom Line:
Contempt of Courts Act - Doctrine of Merger does not bar jurisdiction of Single Judge for contempt proceedings when the order of Single Judge is affirmed by Division Bench.
Statutory provision(s): Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Sections 12, 15
Rama Ravikumar v. K.J. Praveenkumar IAS, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2863303
