JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
1. This is a petition with a prayer to punish opposite parties for committing criminal contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A prayer for awarding compensation has also been made along with the prayer for punishing the opposite parties for committing criminal contempt.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.
3. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 36 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1997 (1) (JT) SC 1 : (1997 Cri LJ 743): (AIR 1997 SC 610), D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal. Certain directions have been issued which are required to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf. The submission, which has been made before us, is that the authorities, namely, opposite parties who have been impleaded by name, did pot follow the requirements as enumerated in paragraph 36 of the decision in the case of D. K. Basu referred to above and the petitioner was detained in custody flouting the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence the opposite parties are liable to be punished for committing contempt of Court.
4. Learned State counsel has submitted that it Would not be a case of criminal contempt at all. Criminal and Civil contempt has been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act reads as under :
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;
5. Criminal contempt has been defined in Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act which reads as under :
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) or any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite parties have violated the directions which have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu (AIR 1997 SC 610) (supra). In our view such a case would fall in the category of civil contempt. In case wilful disobedience of any judgment or direction is com-mitted, the person would be liable to be punished for civil contempt and not for criminal contempt. The cases of criminal contempt are of a different nature where something more than wilful diso-bedience of an order is alleged or any other act which may tend to scandalise or to lower the authority of any Court. It is true that in paragraph 37 of the decision in the case of D. K. Basu (AIR 1997 SC 610) (supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the event of failure to comply with the requirements as indicated in the judgment, the concerned official may be liable for departmental action and may also render himself liable to be punished for contempt of Court and the proceedings for contempt of Court may be instituted in any High. Court of the country, having territorial1 jurisdiction over the matter. The officials may be liable for departmental action or punishment for committing con-tempt; but on the basis of the observations indi-cated above, it would not be open for the petitioner to contend that the lapse on the part of the opposite parties, if any, would amount to criminal contempt. We also find that the prayer for award of compensation in the petition for criminal contempt is misplaced and misconceived.
7. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.