Contempt Maintainable Despite Doctrine of Merger Because SC Only Affirmed HC Order

United Labour Federation Vs Gagandeep Singh Bedi (Supreme Court of India)

The appeal challenged a Madras High Court order dated 28.09.2022 holding that a contempt petition was not maintainable on the ground that the High Court’s earlier order dated 24.04.2007 had merged with the Supreme Court’s order dated 21.11.2017 in civil appeals. The original High Court order, passed in writ proceedings, had directed that in case of vacancies in the Corporation of Chennai, identified persons should be absorbed in order of seniority before appointing fresh candidates. Alleging non-compliance, the appellant filed a contempt petition, which the High Court declined to entertain, applying the doctrine of merger.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that since the civil appeal was dismissed without assigning fresh reasons, the High Court’s order retained independent existence. The respondent relied on decisions in Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries, contending that once leave is granted and the appeal is decided, the doctrine of merger applies.

The Supreme Court held that once leave to appeal is granted and appellate jurisdiction is invoked, the doctrine of merger applies even if the appellate order merely affirms the High Court’s decision. However, the Court clarified that contempt jurisdiction is independent of the doctrine of merger. Where the Supreme Court has not issued fresh directions and has only affirmed the High Court’s order, the directions to be enforced remain those of the High Court. Therefore, the High Court’s jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution is not extinguished merely because its order has merged with that of the Supreme Court.