Holding

The Court held that the respondents had not willfully or deliberately disobeyed the Supreme Court's orders, and therefore the contempt petitions were dismissed.

Summary

Petitioners Kashinath Kher and others filed contempt petitions under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that respondents, including Dinesh Kumar Bhaghat, failed to implement the Supreme Court's directions in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher & Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 762 concerning the preparation of confidential reports for officer promotions. The respondents contended that the passage of time made it impracticable to prepare the reports and relied on advice from senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, who accepted personal responsibility for the interpretation. The Court examined whether the alleged non‑compliance amounted to willful disobedience of its orders. It held that the respondents had not willfully or deliberately defied the judgment, noting the counsel’s candid admission and the practical difficulties involved. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petitions, granting the respondents three months to comply fully with the judgment.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents' failure to prepare confidential reports as directed constitutes contempt of court under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether reliance on senior counsel's advice negates the element of willful disobedience required for contempt.
Whether the directions given by the Supreme Court were practicable given the lapse of time.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 23

Subjects

contempt of courtnon‑complianceimplementation of judgmentSection 23promotionconfidential reportsSupreme Court

Judgment

A KASHINATH KHER AND ORS.
v.
SHRI DINESH KUMAR BHAGAT AND ORS.

MAY 2, 1997

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Contempt of Court :

Non-compliance of Court's order-Contempt petition-Allegation that
C despite specific directions given, respondents did not implement judgment of
this Court in its trne spirit and purport-Counsel for respondents taking
·responsibility for the advice on which the respondents were said to have
acted-Held, the officers have not willfully or deliberately disobeyed the
implementation of the orders of the Court-Time given to respondents to
implement the judgment in its full spirit.
D
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher & Ors., [1996) 8 SCC
762, directions given to implement the judgment.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C) Nos.
207-208 of 1997.
E
(Under Section 23 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.)

Dushyant Dave, Nisha Bagachi and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the
Petitioners.

F Shanti Bhushan and R.N. Keshwani for the Respondent Nos. 1-3:

R.F. Nariman, R.V. Rangam, K. Samdani, R.N. Keshwani, A.V.
Rangam and A. Ranganadhan for the Respondei1t No. 4.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
These contempt petitions have been filed for non-compliance of the
judgment of this Court in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kashinath Kher &
Ors., [1996) 8 SCC 762. The substratum of the complaint of the petitioners
is that despite specific directions given and positive observations made in
H the judgment, the respondents have not implemented the judgment in its
40
K KHER v. D.K BHAGAT 41
true spirit and purport. On the· other hand, they have put up the same A
interpretation of the provisions set up prior to the judgment as an excuse
in promoting the officers, violating the judgment. Shri Shanti Bhushan,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, has stated that for
the purpose of promotion from MMG Scale III to MMG Scale II and so
on, as per the norms, five years' confidential reports and six year's appraisal B
reports are necessarily to be taken into consideration. Recor~ng the C.Rs.
after a lapse of 15 years would be an impossible task since thetfficers who
had observed the conduct of the officers to be promoted would either have
retired or would not be available. In ~hat backdrop, he had advised the

- contemners to go by the existing repqrts and to consider them in accord- C
ance with the Rules for the promotion; therefore, they have not dis-
regarded the directions of this Court.

It is seen from the judgment that specific and unequivocal directions
have been given as to how and by whom C.Rs. are to be written. They relate
to two items. One is that the respondents should identify such of the D
officers whom opportunity to line assignment of ruraVsemi-urban services
was given but they did not avail of the same and to eliminate such of the
officers who have not availed of the opportunity, they ,shall be omitted from
the list; and such officers who availed of the opportunity but could not
. contemplate assignment but for no fault of theirs and those who have E
..,, completed the line assignment should be included in Group A and their
cases should be further considered for further promotion in accordance
with the Rules. In the affidavit filed by Mr. S.S. Partoti AGM {Personal &
HRD), he has stated that first part of the direction had been complied with
and for the compliance of the second part of the directions, they came
F
forward with the samedustification in a different form. In substance, their
contention_ is that it is not practicable to write the ACRs at this distance
of time. They have also further stated that they have obtained the advice
of the counsel and on the faith of that, they have come to that under-
standing. When put a question, Shri Shanti Bhushan has taken respon-
sibility on himself for the advice and stated that he unc!erstood the G

- :>
..
judgment of this Court in a manner which is not inconsistent with its letter
spirit. Therefore, the respondents have acted upon it.

In view of the personal responsibility taken by Shri Shanti Bhushan,
his standing at the bar and his fairness and candid admission, we accept H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A his statement. We do not think that the officers have wilfully or deliberately
disobeyed the implementation of the orders of the Court. Accordingly,
three months' time is now given to the respondents to do the exercise and
iipplement the judgment in its full spirit.

The Contempt Petitions are accordingly _dismissed.
B
R.P. Contempt Petitions dismissed.
c