The Supreme Court has clarified that a contempt of court case cannot be filed on the basis of dissatisfaction with a decision or order made by a judge regarding legal interpretation.

The joint bench made this observation while dismissing a contempt of court petition filed against the judges of the High Court. The Supreme Court made this observation saying that if a person is not satisfied with a decision or legal interpretation made by a High Court judge, there are legal options available to approach a higher court.

This observation was made in the full text of the judgment delivered on Chaitra 19 by a joint bench of Justices Sharanga Subedi and Meghraj Pokharel.

In the recently made public full text, the Supreme Court stated that judicial error and contempt of court are different issues and stated that if a judge makes an error while interpreting the law or using precedent, the path to appeal or review in a higher court is open. Therefore, such a ‘judicial error’ cannot be considered ‘contempt of court’.

Bivek Chaudhary, a student studying at Nepal Law Campus under Tribhuvan University, had filed a writ petition in the Patan High Court claiming that the traffic police's act of 'locking wheels' on the road was illegal.

However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, explaining that the issue of 'locking wheels' was also inherent in the power to punish as per Section 164(1)(b) of the Vehicles and Transport Management Act, 2049.

Chaudhary had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to register a contempt case against the judge, claiming that the High Court's decision violated various precedents set by the Supreme Court and mocked the rule of law.

A bench of Patan High Court judges Rishi Raj Bhandari and Gopal Prasad Bastola had ruled to dismiss Chaudhary's writ petition, saying that the claim in it was not sufficient.

Chaudhary had filed a contempt of court petition in the Supreme Court on Chaitra 17, alleging that the Supreme Court had made a decision contrary to the precedent and principles established in the past.

In the petition, the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the petition, saying that the judges of the High Court did not make a decision with the intention of knowingly insulting the court or obstructing the judicial process while pronouncing the decision and that it would not be appropriate to file a contempt case until that is confirmed.

The court has commented that judges should be able to make decisions fearlessly based on the law and their own conscience and that if a contempt case is filed based on the decision, judges will be put under pressure and judicial independence will be lost.

The Supreme Court has stated that it is not appropriate to file a contempt case until it is confirmed that the judge intentionally insulted the court or obstructed the judicial process.

The full text states, “The High Court judges do not appear to have deliberately and maliciously violated the precedents and principles mentioned by the petitioner in his writ petition. It appears that the judges have exercised their judicial discretion in a specific dispute on the question of interpretation of law and issued a decision/order. Such an act does not fall within the definition of contempt.”

The Supreme Court has also noted that there is a well-established international jurisprudence that generally contempt of court proceedings cannot be initiated against the judgment or order of any judge.

The Supreme Court has stated in the full text that the petitioner has the right to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court, and that a contempt petition cannot be filed despite that legal remedy being available.

The judgment also states that there is a well-established principle that contempt does not exist if there is a difference in the interpretation of a principle or if the lower court interprets the precedent of the higher court differently.

The court concluded that the necessary elements of contempt were not met, stating that the judges' actions had not been proven to have been malicious in their actions to insult the court, obstruct the judicial process, or invalidate the court's order.