Special Appeal Lies Against Single Judge’s Contempt Order Deciding Parties’ Rights, Civil Contempt Is Not ‘Criminal Jurisdiction’: SC Refers Ram Kishan Fauji to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court has held that a person can file an appeal to a Division Bench against a High Court Single Judge’s order in a contempt case, if that order goes beyond the question of contempt and decides the parties’ rights. It has also doubted its own three-judge ruling in Ram Kishan Fauji and referred that question to a larger bench.

The case arose from the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, where a Single Judge was hearing a contempt application against a Uttar Pradesh official over an order of 17 March 2026 directing the State to consider the candidature of certain candidates for Assistant Prosecution Officer posts. The State rejected their candidature and filed a compliance affidavit, but the Single Judge rejected the affidavit and held that the State was bound to appoint them. He added that the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, should appear in person if the order was not complied with. The official challenged this in the Supreme Court, saying that it was not appealable and that a contempt court cannot test the correctness of a compliance order.

Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said that the official could file a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Relying on Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank and Ajay Kumar Bhalla, they held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies only against an order punishing for contempt, but an intra-court appeal lies against an order that decides the merits or the parties’ rights. Examples are:-

1. an order directing compliance again after rejecting the compliance order,

2. directions going beyond the original order,

3. directions against a person not bound by it, and

4. orders deciding disputed questions of fact or law.

They held that civil contempt is not an exercise of “criminal jurisdiction” that would bar a Special Appeal, so High Court decisions saying otherwise may no longer be good law. They doubted Ram Kishan Fauji, which had treated a writ over a criminal matter as “criminal jurisdiction”, because it restricts access to justice, and referred the question to a larger bench. The official may file a Special Appeal within a fortnight, and the contempt case is stayed for two months. The court did not examine the Single Judge’s order on merits.

An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies only against an order punishing for contempt. But an intra-court appeal (such as a Special Appeal) against a Single Judge’s order in contempt proceedings lies, subject to the relevant High Court rules, if the order passes beyond the question of contempt and decides the parties’ substantive rights, such as by rejecting a compliance order and requiring fresh compliance or by deciding disputed questions. Civil contempt is sui generis and is not an exercise of “criminal jurisdiction” that bars such an appeal.

Note: The court did not decide whether the Single Judge’s order was right and left that to the Special Appeal. The larger-bench reference only raises doubt about Ram Kishan Fauji, and that decision remains binding until a larger bench rules, so cant say that it has been overruled.

Citation: Sanjay Prasad v. Madhusudan Dwivedi & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 33319 of 2026, Supreme Court (Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu), decided on 14.10.2026 | 2026 INSC 1128