The Supreme Court has referred the correctness of its 2017 ruling in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana to an appropriate larger Bench, questioning whether restrictions on intra-court appeals under Article 226 of the Constitution unduly limit access to justice. The Court expressed reservations about treating writ proceedings arising from criminal matters as an exercise of criminal jurisdiction for determining appealability.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order on October 14, 2026, in Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi & Ors. The Court also clarified when an order passed by a High Court Single Judge in contempt proceedings may be challenged before a Division Bench.
Background
The appeal arose from contempt proceedings pending before a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The underlying dispute concerned the consideration of certain candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer.
The writ court had passed an order on March 17, 2026, concerning their candidature. The appellant, an alleged contemnor, maintained that the directions had been complied with through an order rejecting the candidates' candidature, which was placed before the contempt court through a compliance affidavit.
However, the Single Judge rejected the compliance affidavit and directed that the concerned Uttar Pradesh government officer appear personally if the earlier order remained unimplemented. The appellant challenged the interim order before the Supreme Court.
The Court explained that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is maintainable against an order imposing punishment for contempt. However, a different position may arise when a Single Judge goes beyond determining contempt and decides substantive rights or issues directions exceeding the original order.
The Bench observed that an intra-court appeal may be available, subject to the applicable High Court rules, where an order rejects a purported compliance decision after examining its correctness, extends beyond the original directions, or finally determines disputed questions of law or fact affecting the parties' rights.
The Court also distinguished civil contempt jurisdiction from ordinary criminal jurisdiction, noting that the possibility of punishment does not, by itself, determine the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised.
The Bench questioned whether the principle in Ram Kishan Fauji, which addressed intra-court appeals in writ proceedings originating in criminal law, could be applied broadly to restrict appeals in contempt matters.
On access to justice, the Court observed:
"The wide and expansive writ jurisdiction which could be exercised by a Division Bench (an appeal being a continuation of the lis), to our mind, has been judicially restricted and curtailed in pursuance of an approach adopted in Ram Kishan Fauji (supra), which tends to violate Articles 14 and 39A; resultantly, it is access to justice which is rendered a casualty."
The Bench further emphasised the importance of interpreting provisions governing appeals in a manner that preserves an available appellate remedy where the language permits such an interpretation. It observed:
"However, where the language conferring a right of appeal is ambiguous or admits of two constructions, the Court must lean in favour of an expansive interpretation, not a restrictive one. It is the construction which enlarges and sustains the right, thereby, advancing the remedy that must be preferred to a narrow and constricted view which impairs or defeats such right."
The Court accordingly referred the questions concerning the correctness of Ram Kishan Fauji to an appropriate Bench for consideration, subject to directions from the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits of the appellant's challenge to the contempt order. It permitted him to file a Special Appeal within two weeks, leaving the legal contentions open for consideration by the appellate Bench.
The contempt proceedings before the Single Judge were stayed for two months, while the reference concerning Ram Kishan Fauji remained pending before the appropriate Bench.
