The dismissal of this contempt petition underscores a critical principle: mere non-compliance with a court order does not constitute contempt unless there is clear, proven wilful disobedience and effective communication of the order to those bound by it. This judgment reinforces that procedural integrity must precede punitive action.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ramesh Ranga, was accused in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act. He alleged that a child witness was tutored to identify him in court on 05.07.2019, an incident allegedly captured on CCTV footage in the corridor of the District Court, SAS Nagar (Mohali). He moved an application to preserve the footage, which was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge relying on Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India. He then filed CRM-M-31294-2019 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking preservation of the footage.
Procedural History
- 21.07.2019: Petition CRM-M-31294-2019 filed before the High Court
- 24.07.2019: High Court passed an order directing the District and Sessions Judge to preserve the CCTV footage
- 01.08.2019: Registry emailed the order to the District and Sessions Judge
- 30.10.2019: State counsel, on instructions of HC Rajesh Chauhan (now ASI), undertook that footage would not be destroyed if still available
- 30.10.2019: CRM-M-31294-2019 was withdrawn
- 12.09.2025: Contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972
- 30.01.2026: High Court dismissed the petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought punishment for criminal contempt for deliberate disobedience of the High Court’s order dated 24.07.2019, alleging that the CCTV footage was destroyed despite the court’s directive.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether wilful disobedience of a court order can be established when the order was never communicated to the custodians of the evidence, and no statutory duty to preserve the footage existed beyond its technical lifespan.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that HC Rajesh Chauhan’s statement before the High Court on 30.10.2019 constituted a binding undertaking to preserve the footage. He argued that the subsequent deletion of footage, despite this assurance, amounted to contempt of court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972. He relied on the principle that any statement made in court by a representative of the State, even if not a lawyer, binds the State.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents countered that the order dated 24.07.2019 was never communicated to the System Officer or the District and Sessions Judge in writing or orally. The CCTV system, installed in 2016-17, had a fixed storage capacity of 9 - 10 days and automatically overwritten footage after that period. The footage was deleted on 15.07.2019 - before the order was even emailed on 01.08.2019. They further argued that HC Rajesh Chauhan had no legal authority to make binding undertakings on behalf of the judiciary or the custodians of the system. His statement was unauthorised, unsupported by documentation, and contradicted by official records.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the factual matrix and procedural record. It noted that the order dated 24.07.2019 was issued without impleading the District and Sessions Judge or the System Officer, and no formal communication protocol was followed. The email sent on 01.08.2019 was the only communication, and it arrived after the footage had already been overwritten.
"The CCTV footage was deleted automatically on the expiry of 10 days i.e. on 15.07.2019. The order passed by this Court was only communicated to the learned District and Sessions Judge via e-mail on 01.08.2019."
The Court found that HC Rajesh Chauhan’s statement on 30.10.2019 was not made under any lawful authority. He was neither a party to the original petition nor an officer vested with administrative control over the CCTV system. His claim that he had filed an application to preserve the footage was entirely unsubstantiated - no copy of the application was produced, no entry existed in the court’s zimni orders, and no record of communication to the server room was maintained.
The Court emphasized that contempt requires proof of intentional defiance, not mere negligence or technical failure. The deletion was automatic, not deliberate. The failure to communicate the order to the responsible custodians lay with the petitioner and the Registry, not the respondents.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that no contempt was established because there was no proof of wilful disobedience, no effective communication of the order to those responsible for preserving the footage, and no legal obligation to retain footage beyond the system’s technical limits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Communication of Orders Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must ensure that court orders directing preservation of evidence are formally communicated to the custodians via written notice, not just email
- Failure to serve the order on the responsible authority cannot be blamed on the custodian
- In cases involving digital evidence, always obtain written acknowledgment of receipt from the custodian
Undertakings by Non-Lawyers Are Not Binding
- Statements made in court by police officers or administrative staff without express authority do not create legal obligations
- Courts will not enforce undertakings made by persons lacking jurisdiction or mandate
- Always verify the legal capacity of the person making an undertaking before relying on it
Technical Limitations Override Judicial Directives
- When evidence is subject to automatic deletion due to technical constraints, courts must consider feasibility
- A directive to preserve evidence must be reasonable and implementable
- Petitioners must act promptly and provide technical specifications of storage systems to courts before seeking preservation orders
