The Supreme Court has sharply criticised the growing practice of litigants — particularly government authorities — failing to comply with court orders and filing delayed appeals or review petitions only when faced with contempt proceedings. The court said such conduct must be dealt with firmly to prevent erosion of public faith in the judiciary.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said delayed appeals should remain an exception, but in recent years they have increasingly become the norm.
“Delayed filing of appeals should be the exception. But in recent times, the exception has practically evolved to become the rule. Orders passed by courts are not complied with for a long time, and when contempt petitions are filed, belated appeals, with tremendous delay, are preferred,” the bench observed.
The court also rejected the defence often taken by authorities citing administrative hurdles or impossibility of implementing orders. It said such arguments cannot be raised during contempt proceedings if the concerned party did not inform the court about the difficulty within the stipulated time.
The bench warned that such conduct undermines the authority of courts and may amount to criminal contempt in certain situations.
“We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these practices. It is felt that by such modus operandi, disobedient litigants act brazenly which has the further effect of bringing down the authority and majesty of courts and the rule of law, interfering in the administration of justice. The same may well, in certain situations, border on criminal contempt.”
The Supreme Court also urged High Courts to take a strict view of such cases, especially when the litigants are state authorities or bodies covered under Article 12 of the Constitution.
High courts should deal with such “unscrupulous litigants, more so when they happen to be ‘State’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, or like bodies, with an iron hand”, the bench said, adding: “Unless HCs, so also this court, deal with these aspects firmly, we run the clear risk of erosion of the unflinching faith that the ordinary litigants of this country repose in the judiciary at all levels. It is the solemn duty of all of us manning courts across the hierarchy to ensure that the public faith never wavers.”
While noting that justice must be tempered with mercy, the court said strong action is necessary in cases involving dishonest litigants and suggested that the judiciary may need to reconsider its “liberal approach to contempt.
The bench also clarified that contempt proceedings are not limited only to parties directly before the court. Third parties or officials involved in the decision-making chain could also be held liable for non-compliance.
“Simply put, thus, it is no longer res integra that a party, once becomes or is made aware of an order of this court, if yet acts in wilful default or deliberate non-compliance or any such like conduct against/in breach of the order concerned, makes itself liable to face the full wrath of contempt jurisdiction,” it said.
The observations came while hearing a contempt petition against officials of the Government of Chhattisgarh for failing to comply with a court order regarding the regularisation of certain employees. The court granted them a final opportunity to implement the order within 15 days.
