- (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Dwivedi and Sri Shiva Kant Tiwari the learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Chaudhary the learned Counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
(2.) Before adverting to the controversy involved in the present case, I think it is appropriate to state the fact that the Constitution of India is very comprehensive and has provided checks and balances in almost every matter and Entry 14 of the List-III Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is as under: Contempt of Court, but not including contempt of the Supreme Court.
(3.) This Entry clearly shows that both the Parliament and State Legislature are entitled to frame law regarding powers of the High Court in matters of contempt of Court. The Parliament and the State Legislature are entitled to frame law even to limit the powers of the High Court in matters of contempt of Courts. Thus Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been enacted by the Parliament within the framework of the Constitution. Preamble of this Act is: An Act to define and limit the powers of certain Courts in punishing contempt of Courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.;