### Introduction
This case revolves around a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the High Court of Delhi on its own motion following a violent attack on court-appointed Advocate Commissioners in Kolkata. The incident stemmed from a trademark infringement suit filed by Samsung Electronics Company Limited against vendors selling counterfeit products bearing its marks. The court's intervention highlighted the critical need to protect the administration of justice from interference, particularly when judicial officers or commissioners are obstructed in executing court orders. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in upholding its authority against premeditated disruptions, balancing the principles of wilful disobedience with the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
### Factual Background
Samsung Electronics Company Limited, a global leader in electronics with operations in over 67 countries including India, discovered in November 2014 that several vendors in the Khidderpore area of Kolkata were selling counterfeit mobile phones, tablets, and accessories under its trademark "Samsung" and oval slanted logo. The company identified five main markets and 15 vendors involved in this activity. On December 23, 2014, the Delhi High Court, in the suit CS(OS) No. 4024/2014, restrained these vendors from dealing in counterfeit goods and appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners to inspect specific shops, prepare inventories of infringing products, seize them, seal them, and release them on superdari for production in court as needed. The commissioners were authorized to seek assistance from Samsung representatives and local police.
The commissioners coordinated with Samsung's counsel and informed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Enforcement), Kolkata, in advance. On January 13, 2015, they arrived at the markets with 21 police personnel. Upon reaching the sites, they encountered resistance: shops were shut, lights turned off, and mobs gathered, armed with rods, hockey sticks, and lathis. Several commissioners were assaulted; for instance, Mr. Shravan Sahary suffered blows to his face, losing two teeth, while Mr. Ankur Mittal received multiple injuries. The mobs manhandled police personnel and forced the teams to flee without completing the inspections. Injured commissioners and police were treated at hospitals, and a FIR was registered by Kolkata Police under various IPC sections. The attack appeared premeditated, as news of the raid had spread, leading to the removal of counterfeit goods beforehand.
### Procedural Background
The underlying suit, CS(OS) No. 4024/2014, was filed by Samsung against 15 defendants for trademark infringement. The court issued an ex-parte injunction and appointed commissioners on December 23, 2014. Following the January 13, 2015 incident, Mr. Shravan Sahary mentioned the matter before the Delhi High Court on January 22, 2015, leading to suo motu criminal contempt proceedings. Notices were issued to the original 16 defendants and the DCP, Kolkata, for explanations. The matter was transferred to a Division Bench. Based on police investigations, additional respondents (Nos. 17-30) were impleaded between March 2015 and April 2024. Affidavits were filed by respondents denying involvement, claiming alibis, or tendering apologies. Kolkata Police submitted charge-sheets and additional affidavits identifying attackers. The court appointed an Amicus Curiae and heard arguments, culminating in the judgment on August 22, 2025.
### Core Dispute
The central issue was whether the respondents committed criminal contempt by wilfully interfering with the administration of justice through their actions in obstructing and assaulting the court-appointed Advocate Commissioners. The court examined if the respondents' conduct demonstrated knowledge of the court order and intent to disrupt its execution, constituting contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Respondents argued lack of awareness, alibis, or mere bystander status, while the Amicus Curiae contended it was a concerted effort to thwart judicial process. The dispute hinged on proving "wilful" interference beyond reasonable doubt, balancing apologies with the gravity of the assault on court officers.
### Discussion on Judgments
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to define the scope of criminal contempt, emphasizing wilful disobedience and interference in justice. In Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, cited in the context of upholding judicial majesty, the Apex Court observed that contempt jurisdiction protects the dignity of courts as a guarantee for citizens' rights, underscoring that undermining respect for the judiciary erodes democratic fabric—this was referred to establish the purpose of contempt proceedings in the present case. Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, (2014) 16 SCC 204, was extensively quoted to explain that contempt requires "wilful" disobedience, excluding accidental or negligent acts, and demands proof beyond reasonable doubt; it was used to delineate that proceedings are quasi-criminal and must be exercised cautiously, applying this to assess if respondents' actions were intentional. U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association, (2022) 1 SCC 101, was invoked to reiterate principles from prior cases, noting that two interpretations of an action favor non-contumacious views if possible, and was referenced to affirm the need for mental intent in interference. Hukum Chand Deswal v. Satish Raj Deswal, (2021) 13 SCC 166, was cited alongside Ram Kishan to emphasize the "wilful" element as knowingly intentional, excluding bona fide inability, and was applied to evaluate respondents' claims of unawareness. S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591, was mentioned in the context of excluding compelling circumstances from contempt, used to reject alibis lacking proof. Rakapalli Raja Ram Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao, (1989) 4 SCC 255, Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332, Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, (2000) 3 SCC 282, Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21, Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya, (2004) 1 SCC 360, State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275, Sahdeo v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 705, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus, (2013) 9 SCC 600, Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak, (2008) 14 SCC 392, and Three Cheers Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. CESC Ltd., (2008) 16 SCC 592, were collectively referenced as precedents on standards of proof, wilfulness, and caution in contempt, invoked to support the finding that only deliberate interference qualifies as contempt in this mob attack scenario. R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, (2000) 4 SCC 400, was quoted approvingly in U.N. Bora to reinforce contempt's contours, applied here to limit proceedings to proven wilful acts.
The judges reasoned that criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requires wilful interference in justice administration, proven beyond reasonable doubt, as established in precedents like Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj. They analyzed affidavits and police reports, finding the attack premeditated: shops were preemptively cleared, shutters downed, and mobs mobilized upon commissioners' arrival. This demonstrated intent to obstruct court orders, as respondents knew of the raid's purpose from interactions. Alibis by shop owners (e.g., Respondents 1, 4, 13) were rejected, as their absence did not negate orchestration or knowledge, evidenced by on-site resistance. Mere bystanders (e.g., cycle repairers, bus conductors) lacked intent or knowledge, discharging them. However, identified attackers and shop affiliates showed wilfulness by inciting violence to prevent seizures, undermining judicial authority. Apologies were insufficient given injuries to commissioners and police, emphasizing deterrence to uphold rule of law. The analysis balanced evidence with contempt's quasi-criminal nature, confining punishment to those with proven interference.
The court held Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, and 27 guilty of criminal contempt for wilfully interfering in justice administration. Each was fined Rs. 2,000 and sentenced to one day of simple imprisonment, with medical examination in Tihar Jail. Notices against other respondents were discharged. The petition was disposed of, with observations limited to contempt proceedings, not affecting parallel criminal cases.
This case reaffirms that criminal contempt requires wilful interference in justice administration, proven beyond reasonable doubt, excluding accidental or unaware acts. Obstructing court-appointed commissioners constitutes contempt if intentional, as it undermines judicial majesty and citizens' rights protection. Unconditional apologies do not absolve grave interferences like violent assaults on court officers. Courts must exercise contempt powers sparingly but firmly to deter premeditated disruptions, ensuring rule of law prevails without affecting parallel criminal trials.
Court on Its Own Motion Vs Obsession Naaz & Ors.: August 22, 2025:CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2015:2025:DHC:7206-DB:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
