Private Criminal Contempt Can't Proceed Without Advocate General's Consent; To Be Treated As Information: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that private parties seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings cannot bypass the statutory safeguards prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, holding that a petition filed without the written consent of the Advocate General is not maintainable in its present form and must be treated only as information placed before the Court.

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T passed the ruling while dealing with a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against Prabhat Sharma, Garima Sharma, IPS officer Ranu Sharma and ACP Tanvir. The company had sought action alleging deliberate disobedience of an earlier order passed by the High Court in December 2024.

The complainant was represented by Advocate Angad Kamath, while the accused were represented by Advocate Kavitha Damodaran for accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Advocate Rahul Krishna Reddy P. for accused No. 4. Senior counsel Dhananjaya Joshi raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the proceedings.

The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by the company against the accused alleging misuse of confidential and proprietary information. During the course of the litigation, the High Court had appointed a Court Commissioner through an order dated December 6, 2024, authorising search and seizure of data storage devices, files and documents from the respondents' premises. According to the complainant, the respondents obstructed the execution of the commission warrant and prevented the Court Commissioner from carrying out the exercise.

Based on these allegations, the company approached the High Court seeking criminal contempt action. However, the accused argued that the petition was filed by a private party without obtaining the mandatory prior consent of the Advocate General as required under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They contended that the requirement was not a mere procedural formality but a substantive safeguard intended to prevent misuse of contempt jurisdiction.

The complainant, on the other hand, argued that the petition merely placed information before the Court and that the High Court could independently exercise its constitutional power under Article 215 of the Constitution to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in the Prashant Bhushan contempt case, to argue that information can reach the Court through a petition filed by a private person.

Examining the statutory framework, the Bench noted that Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act permits initiation of criminal contempt proceedings either by the Court on its own motion, by the Advocate General, or by any other person with the written consent of the Advocate General. The Court observed that admittedly no such consent had been obtained in the present case.

The Bench further emphasised that while Article 215 confers wide powers on High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves, the procedure prescribed by law cannot be ignored. Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and others and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and others, the Court highlighted that procedural safeguards exist to prevent courts from being flooded with frivolous contempt petitions.

Importantly, the Court observed that "the complainant can come before the Court, as indeed he has done, requesting the Court to take suo motu action. However, the procedure as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.N. Duda has to be followed."

Holding that the statutory requirements had not been complied with, the Bench allowed the interlocutory application seeking recall of an earlier order that had overruled objections on maintainability. The Court directed that the petition should not continue as a criminal contempt case and instead be treated as information under the Karnataka High Court Contempt Rules for consideration by the Chief Justice.

"The Registry shall treat this petition as 'information' under Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court proceedings) Rules, 1981, and shall place the same before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders," the Court ordered while closing the contempt petition for statistical purposes.

Case Title: New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Prabhat Sharma and Others

Date of Judgment: June 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T