Private Criminal Contempt Plea Without Advocate General’s Consent to Be Treated Only as Information: Karnataka High Court

The Statutory Firewall: Section 15 & The Advocate General’s Role

The core point: private parties seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings cannot bypass the statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 15 of the  Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 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.

The reason: the court stated that the requirement was not merely a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard intended to prevent the misuse of contempt jurisdiction.

The Procedural Shift: Bypassing the Adversarial Route

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.

Alternative route: 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.

The Prerogative of the Bench: Transition to Suo Motu Review

Aftermath: Once categorized as information, the matter transitions entirely from the judicial side to the administrative side of the High Court. The information must be placed directly before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for consideration. The private litigant can no longer demand a hearing as a matter of right. It rests exclusively within the plenary, discretionary power of the Chief Justice to evaluate the gravity of the alleged disobedient conduct and determine whether it warrants initiating suo motu (on its own motion) criminal contempt proceedings to vindicate the majesty of the court.

Case Title: New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Prabhat Sharma and Others (2026)