Karnataka High Court Says Private Criminal Contempt Pleas Need Advocate General’s Consent

The Karnataka High Court has held that a private individual cannot directly maintain a criminal contempt petition without first obtaining the written consent of the Advocate General, as required under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the absence of such consent, the petition can only be treated as information placed before the Court for considering whether suo motu contempt proceedings should be initiated.

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T passed the ruling while hearing a contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against four individuals, including an IPS officer and an Assistant Commissioner of Police. The company alleged that the respondents had deliberately obstructed the execution of a court-appointed commissioner's warrant issued by the High Court in an ongoing civil dispute involving misuse of confidential business information.

The respondents challenged the maintainability of the contempt petition, arguing that it had been filed by a private party without obtaining the mandatory consent of the Advocate General. They contended that this requirement is a substantive safeguard designed to prevent frivolous or unnecessary contempt proceedings.

The company argued that it had merely placed information before the Court and that the High Court could independently exercise its constitutional powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to initiate contempt proceedings on its own motion.

Examining Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court noted that criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated either suo motu by the Court, by the Advocate General, or by any other person with the Advocate General’s written consent. Since no such consent had been obtained, the statutory procedure had not been followed.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker and Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute, the Bench observed that procedural safeguards are necessary to prevent misuse of contempt jurisdiction. While acknowledging that a private person can bring information to the Court’s notice, the Court clarified that such a petition cannot proceed as a criminal contempt case without complying with statutory requirements.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to treat the petition as “information” under Rule 7 of the Karnataka High Court Contempt Rules, 1981, and place it before the Chief Justice for consideration of possible suo motu action. The criminal contempt petition was thereafter closed for statistical purposes.

Case: New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Prabhat Sharma & Others (Karnataka High Court, 16 June 2026)