<p>Civil contempt means willful disobedience of a decision of the court and merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, liability cannot be fastened on a higher official, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt.</p>.<p>The apex court said Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains civil contempt to mean willful disobedience of a decision of the Court, and therefore, what is relevant is the “willful” disobedience. </p>.<p>"We are dealing with civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the 'willful' disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order.</p>.<p>"Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious, and intentional act. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature," the bench said.</p>.<p>In law, vicarious liability is the responsibility assigned to an employer resulting from the actions of an employee.</p>.<p>The apex court's judgment came on an appeal filed against the order of the Gauhati High Court finding the appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.</p>.<p>The apex court, while setting aside the order of the high court, said it is the specific case of the appellants that they did not violate the directives of the court.</p>.<p>"There is no material to either establish their knowledge on the action of their subordinates or that they acted in collusion with each other," the bench said. </p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>Civil contempt means willful disobedience of a decision of the court and merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, liability cannot be fastened on a higher official, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices S K Kaul and M M Sundresh said vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt.</p>.<p>The apex court said Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains civil contempt to mean willful disobedience of a decision of the Court, and therefore, what is relevant is the “willful” disobedience. </p>.<p>"We are dealing with civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the 'willful' disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order.</p>.<p>"Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious, and intentional act. What is required is proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature," the bench said.</p>.<p>In law, vicarious liability is the responsibility assigned to an employer resulting from the actions of an employee.</p>.<p>The apex court's judgment came on an appeal filed against the order of the Gauhati High Court finding the appellants guilty of willful disobedience of the order in respect to the levy made while upholding Section 21 of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972.</p>.<p>The apex court, while setting aside the order of the high court, said it is the specific case of the appellants that they did not violate the directives of the court.</p>.<p>"There is no material to either establish their knowledge on the action of their subordinates or that they acted in collusion with each other," the bench said. </p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>