Holding

The contempt notice was discharged as the respondents complied with the Court's directions and tendered unconditional apologies, resulting in no finding of contempt.

Summary

The Supreme Court had issued directions in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591 of 1987 ordering the reinstatement and accommodation of petitioner No. 9 and other employees of the Pension Paying Office in Pokhara, Nepal. A contempt petition was filed alleging that the respondents, including the Officer‑in‑Charge of the office, had failed to implement those directions and had mistreated the petitioners. The respondents filed affidavits offering unconditional apologies and explained that the delay was due to communication lapses and administrative bottlenecks, but that the petitioner had ultimately been reinstated and given accommodation, with rent compensation ordered. The Court expressed serious concern about the tendency of parties and public officers to ignore court orders, but noted that compliance had been achieved and the apologies were accepted. Consequently, the contempt notice was discharged and the respondents were ordered to pay costs.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to implement the Supreme Court's directions amounted to contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether the delay in compliance, explained by administrative and communication reasons, justified a finding of contempt.
Whether the unconditional apologies and subsequent compliance negate the need for contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 2

Subjects

Contempt of courtCompliance with court ordersSupreme Court directionsApologyAdministrative delayRule of law

Judgment

.

BIGYAN KUMAR & ORS.
A
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

MARCH 18. 1988
8
[RANGANATII MISRA AND MURARI MORON DUTI, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2 and 12-0bedience to
Court orders-Necessity for-On failure-Rod of justice to descend
down to punish-Growing conduct of parties and public officers, in .A
C particular, of ignoring Court orders-Deprecated. '

Practice and Procedure: Orders of Court-Everyone to render ~
due obedience-Failure should be punished.

The Supreme Court issued certain directions in respect of peti·
D tioner No. 9 regarding accommodation and reinstatement iit service in a
writ petition filed on behalf of forty petitioners, working in Pension
Paying Office, Pokhara, in Nepal, praying for directions to the Union of
India, regarding their permanency and other benefits applicable to
similar Union Government employees.

E In the petition for contempt, it was alleged that these directions
were not implemented, and that consequent to the_ filing of the writ
petition, the authorities, especially local officers, were ill-treating the
petitioners. ·

On notice being issued, affidavit on behalf of respondents Nos. 1
F to 3 and 5 were filed tendering unconditional apology, and explaining
their positions regarding the implementation of the Court's orders.
-+'
Respondent No. 6, who was the officer-in-<:harge of the Pension
Paying Office and who was responsible for the implementation of the
Court's orders, also tendered an unconditional apology and stated, in
G ltis affidavit, that petitioner No. 9 was dispossessed of the residential
accommodation on 14th August, 1987, by which time the Court's or~ers
of 7th August, 1987 had not been received by him, and the accommoda·
lion had already been given to another person, that petitioner No. 9 was
later restored to service and given possession of similar accommodation
and that the rent paid by the petitioner for the private accommodation
H will be paid out of Government account, and requested for condonation
280
BIGYAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. 281
·~
of delay in implementing the orders of this Court.
A
Disposing of the Petition,

HELD: This Court records it serious concern and disapproval of
the growing conduct of parties and public officers, in particular, of
ignoring the directions of the Court and the multiplying instances of B ·
). confrontation. [285F)

The Court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a
, built-in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accord-
/'- ance with law. For discharging that dnty, the Court has got to adopt an
· attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation
..:{ brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the c
' Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate, objective
and analytical. The Judges who preside over these courts do not act
with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the
community. [285F-G)
D
In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for
which the courts are established is duly served, it is necessary that
everyone within the framework of the Rule of Law must accept the
system, render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure
of compliance, the rod of justice must descend down to punish.
Everyone within the system must realise this situation and should not E
unnecessarily get into a confrontation. [285H; 286A-B) ·

In the instant case; there is some material which if probed;
into
further, might have established that respondent No. 6 had notice of the .
i. order of this Court before physical dispossession of the petitioner was
' effected. There is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by p
respondent No. 6 or for the matter of that the local officers, when the
writ petition was filed in this Court. That backdrop could supply the
motive for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court. It is,
however, not considered expedient to probe further into ttie matter on
account of the fact that there has been compliance and each of the
respondents has tendered unqualified apology which is accepted and the G
_J., contempt notice is discharged. [285D-E; 286B)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil)
No. 27860 of 1987.
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591of1987. H
"Issue notice returnable on August 14, 1987. Mr. B.
Parathasarathy accepts the notice for Union oflndia.

G Respondent is directed to file counter affidavit within
one week from today.

In the meanwhile petitioner No. 9 will not be evicted
from the quarter now occupied by him."

H Again on 14th August, 1987, the Court further directed:
BJGYAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. 283

" ........ Petitioner No. 9 will be put back in posses-
A
sion of the government quarter if he has already been
evicted."

Ultimately on 11th September, 1987, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court directed:
B
"Petitioner No. 9 will be reinstated in service and he
will also have to be put in possession of his quarter ~orth
with."

1 On the allegation that the directions of this Court in regard to
-'""" petitioner No. 9 were not implemented, the present contempt pro-
" ceeding has been initiated on behalf of the petitioners.
c
-.(
I
Petitioners have alleged that with the filing. of the writ petition,
the treatment provided to the· petitioners by the establishment has
undergone a change and those of the respondents who have local base
in Nepal have started ill-treating the petitioners,. Several allegations D·
have been made in support of the aforesaid plea. After notice was
isssued on this petition, the different respondents have filed separate
affidavits in return.

The Indian Embassy for Nepal is located at Kathmandu. The
Pension Paying Office is maintained at some distance at a place called E
Pokhara. It is the common case of the parties that the necessity to
maintain such an office is linked up with the historical fact that several
inhabitants of Nepal worked in the Indian Army under the Gorkha
Regiment. Mainly for their convenience this extra territorial establish-
ment is being maintained. Some of the petitioners are India-based
while others' are residents of Nepal. The establishment at Pokhara is F
under the direct control of an Officer attached to the Indian Embassy
styled as Officer-in-Charge, Indian Embassy, Pension Paying Office,
Pokhara. The Ambassador of the Indian Embassy at Kathmandu,
being the head of Indian Government establishments in Nepal, has
also supervisory jurisdiction over the Pay Office. Respondent No. 5,
the Military and Air Attache of the Indian Embassy is the link between G
the Embassy establishment at Kathmandu and the saicl Officer-;-in-
Charge at Pokhara. Respondent No. 3 is the Controller of Defence
Accounts who inter alia oversees the disbursement of the pension of
the ex-Army personnel. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India
through its Defence.Secretary and respondent No. 2 is the Secretary of
the Ministry of External Affairs. Admittedly both these respondents H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

are based in Delhi and have been impleaded being in overall charge of
A
their establishments.

Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Defence Secretary, in his affidavit has
taken the stand that he was not personally impleaded in the writ peti-
tion. Only when he was served with notice in the contempt matter he
B came to know about Court's directions and realised the full implication
of the situation when he had a conference with his senior counsel on
December 6, 1987. Immediate action was taken to ensure appropriate
compliance. Shri K.P.S. Menon, Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of
External Affairs has also taken the plea that he was not ·personally
impleaded as a party in the writ petition and came to know about the
Court's order at the same conference with senior counsel on December
c 6, 1987, and ensured immediate compliance with Court's directions. '}-
Both these Secretaries to the Government have tendered uncondi-
tional apology. The third respondent is the Controller of Defence
Accounts, Central Command, Meerut. He has taken the stand that
petitioner No. 9, Shri C.N. Dubey, is not ari employee of the establish-
D ment of the Controller of Defence Accounts at Meerut nor is he an
employee under his administrative control. According to him, he has
no concern with any executive or adminstrative matter relating to the
Pension Paying Office at Pokhara. Respondent No. 4, the Ambas-
sador, was not subjected to the contempt proceedings. Respondent
No. 5 is the Military and Air Attache of the Indian Embassy at
E Kathmandu and is in charge of the general administration of the milit-
ary wing. Apart from offering unconditional apology, he has indicated
that Dubey has been restored to service and he has been provided with
residential accommodation and for the period he was out of possession
of the official residence, rent by way of compensation has already been
ordered to be paid to him.
F
It is clear from the orders made by this Court and the facts
appearing on the record that the responsibility for implementation of
the Court's orders in regard to petitioner No. 9 squarely rested with
respondent No. 6, the Officer-in-Charge of the Pension Paying
Office. He, in his affidavit, has stated that Dubey was dispossessed
G from his residential accommodation on 14th August, 1987, and by then
the order of this Court dated 7th August, 1987 had not been received
by him. That accommodation was given to one Krishna Bahadur.
Later Dubey has been restored to service, given possession of a similar
accommodation as the one from which he was displaced and with a
view to giving effect to the spirit of the order of this Court, the rent
H which Dubey had paid for private accommodation has been decided to
BIGYAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. 285
r be borne out of Government account. His affidavit explains the delay
A
in implementation thus:

..... "There has been delay in implementation of the
orders of this Hon'ble Court due to delay in communica-
tion, administrative bottlenecks and for security reasons. It
is further stated that we had no intention to flout or disobey B
) the orders of this Hon'ble Court but for the reasons beyond
our control, the same could not be implemented notwith-

- /'' standing the fact that we had all intentions to implement
the same in the right earnest. The orders have since been
implemented, the petitioner has since been reinstated and
also given accommodation. The delay in implementing the
same may kindly be condoned and we be excused for such c
-~ I delay for which we have tendered an unconditional apology
at the outset of this affidavit."

There is some material which, if probed int@ further, might have
established that respondent No. 6 had the notice of the order of this D
Court before physical dispossession of Dubey was effected. As already
noticed, there is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by
respondent No. 6 or for the matter of that the local officers, when the
writ petition was filed in this Court. That backdrop, as contended by
counsel for the petitioners, perhaps could be taken to supply the
->.' motive for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court. We E
have not considered it expedient to probe into the matter further on
account of the fact that there has been compliance and each of the
respondents has tendered unqualified apology.

I We would part with the matter by recording our serious concern
.j...._
( and disapproval of the growing conduct of parties and public officers in F
particular of ignoring the directions of the Courts and the multiplying
instances of confrontation. The Court, including the apex one, is a part
of the State and is a built-in mechanism of the Constitution to adminis-
ter justice in accordance with law. For discharging that duty, the Court
has got to adopt an attitude of critical assessment of situations con-
nected with litigation brought before it for adjudication. The manner G
of functioning of the Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be
)., dispassionate, objective and analytical. The Judges who preside over
these courts do not act with a sense of superiority; nor do they look
down upon others in the community. In order that the system may
efficiently work and the purpose for which the courts are established is
duly served, it is necessary that everyone within the framework of the H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A Rule of Law must accept the system, render due obedience to orders,
made and in the event of failure of compliance, the rod of justice must
descend down to punish. We hope and trust that everyone within the
system realises this situation· and does not unnecessarily get into a
confrontation.
B
The apologies tendered by the respondents are accepted and the
contempt notice is discharged. Respondent No. 6 is directed to pay to
the petitioners the costs of the proceedings which are assessed at
Rs.2,000 within one month.

N.P.V. Petition disposed of. .~
-