CHHOTU RAM vs URVASHI GULATI

The Supreme Court emphasized that under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting contempt, and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, akin to criminal proceedings. The Court reiterated that mere probabilities are insufficient for a contempt finding, as established in V.G. Nigam & Ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr. (1992) 4 SCC 697, where willful conduct is a necessary element. The Court held that the applicant was eligible for promotion based on the interpretation of Rule 9 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II Rules, affirming the decision made in CA No.5889 of 1999.