Holding

A direction couched as a request by the Supreme Court is an obligatory command that the High Court must obey under Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the Constitution.

Summary

Special Leave Petitions were filed against interim orders of the Madras High Court. On 14 January 1994 the Supreme Court ordered the parties to approach the High Court for an early disposal of the matter and to inform the Supreme Court of the result, expressing confidence that the High Court would give due attention. The Madras High Court, however, rejected the request for early hearing on 18 August 1994, effectively ignoring the Supreme Court’s order. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, held that even a direction couched as a request is an obligatory command under Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the Constitution, and directed the High Court to dispose of the matter within one month. The Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings but reiterated its request, and listed the special leave petitions for further hearing.

Issues considered

Whether a direction expressed as a request by the Supreme Court to a High Court is binding and must be complied with.
Whether the High Court’s refusal to comply amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court.
The constitutional basis for enforcing Supreme Court orders on lower courts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 141, s. Article 142, s. Article 144
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

Supreme CourtHigh Courtdirection as requestcontempt of courtArticles 141 142 144judicial hierarchyspecial leave petitioncompliance

Judgment

A MIS SPENCER AND CO., LTD. AND ANR.
v.
MIS VISHWA DARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

DECEMBER 6, 1994

B [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Articles 141, 142 and 144-Relationship
between Supreme Court and High Court-Duty of High Court direction by
Supreme Court to High Court couched in terms ofrequest-High Court not
complying with the direction-Held, High Court is under obligation to
c come in aid of Supreme Court and comply its directions even though
couched in terms ofa request Contempt ofCourt Act, 1971.

Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court against certain
interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court _of
Madras. This Court issued notice on the Special Leave Petitions and
D the application for stay. On 14.1.1994 this Court passed an order
directjng the parties counsel to approach the High Court for an early
disposal of the matter and inform this court the result thereof. This
court further observed:

"We have no doubt that the High Court when
E approached for the purpose would give the matter due
atterition as is expected by us."

Thereafter, the special leave petitions were adjourned from time to
time to await the decision of the High Court. On 18.8. 1994, a Division
Bench of the High Court rejected the early hearing application on the
F ground that there is nothing important in the matter so as to give it
precedence over other matters. While rejecting the early hearing
application, the High court took notice of the order of this Court dated
14.1.1994.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
G after consulting the Solicitor General and the counsel for the parties
this Court set aside the 9rder of the High Court rejecting the early
hearing application and directed the High Court to dispose of the
matter expeditiously, at any rate within one month. Restraining itself
from issuing contempt notice to the Judges comprising the Division
Bench of the High Court, this Court
H
294
SPENCER & CO., v. VISHWA DARSHAN [PUNCHHI, J.] 295

HELD : 1. When one superior speaks to another it is always in a A ,
language sweet, soft and melodious, more suggestive than directive.
Judicial language is always cha~te. Outwardly, the order dated January
14, 1994 is neither commanding in nature nor explicitly in terms of a
direction. However, the High Court was bound to come in aid of the
Supreme Court when it required the High Court to have its order
worked out. The language of request oftenly employed by the Supreme B
Court in such situations is tt> be read by the High Court as an
obligation, in carrying out the constitutional mandate, maintaining the
writ of the Supreme Court running large throughout the country.
(298 B, 300 DJ

Bhagavad Gita verse 73 referred to : Mis Bayer India Ltd and Others C
v. State ofMaharashtra and others, (1993] 3 SCC 29, referred to.

2. There is a deliberate and conscious obstruction, put and
recorded by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court even when the
judicial order of the Supreme Court dated 14.1.1994 was before them,
in support of the prayer for an l!arly du rated hearing of the appeal. D
[300 A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
Nos. 12597-600of1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.93 of the Madras High Court E
in C.M.P Nos 6300-6303of1993 ..

Dipankar P. Gupta, Solicitor General, G. L. Sanghi, K. Parasaran, S.
Arvind, V. Balachandran, P. Parmeswaran, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Ms. Sarin
Khanjuria and Ms lndu Malhotra for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered by : F
PUNCHHI, J. It has been said before, and needs to be said again, what
we are about to through this order, to strengthen the functional chains,
which pull the judicial machine to its destination, on the track laid by the
Constitution.
G
We have on our board special leave petitions nos. 12597-600 of 1993
against the judgement and order dated 29th April, 1993 of a Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in some C.M.P.s in
O.S.A. Nos 69-73 of 1993. These are at the instance of the first and the
second defendant in the original suit filed by the plaintiff-first respondent,
pending before a learned Single Jupge of the High Court, in which in intra - H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A court appellate jurisdiction the petitioners have been subjected to certain
interim orders of significance by the Division Bench. This court on I 0-9-
1993 ordered issuance of notice in the special leave petitions as also on the
application for stay returnable within four weeks. On response, and
consideration of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents and
rejoinder affidavits by the petitioners, we had on 14-1-1994 passed the
B following order :

"Let the matter stand by three months. In the meantime,
parties ~ounsel shall approach the High court for an early
disposal of the O.S.A Nos. 69-73/1993 pending before it and
apprise to us on the next date of hearing the result of it. We
C have no doubt that the High Court when approached for the
purpose would give the matter due attention as is expected by
us."

In order to await the outcome of the order we · had kept the matter
adjourned from time to time when a Division Bench of the Madras High
D . Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Guiab C. Gupta (now Chief Justice
of Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.A.
Thanikkachalam passed on August 18, 1994 the following order: ·

"These applications are filed for fixing early hearing of the
appeal. The order of the Supreme Court dated 14-1-1994 in
Special Leave Appeal (civil) no 12597-600/93 (AN) is
E produced before us to support the aforesaid prayer. We have
considered the matter with the seriousness it deserves; but
find nothing important so as to give precedence to the
Appeals over large numbers of pending appeals in this Court.
The appellant must take his chance strictly in ()rder in which
he approached this Court by filing these appeals.
F
The applications are rejected."

Patently our order dated 14-1-1994 has been flouted, which is a matter
of grave concern to us. On our part what else is expected? It has obvious
ramifications, far and significant. We therefore have on our own solicited
G the advice of the Solicitor General of India Mr. Dipankar P. Gupta, besides
that of Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate, the Ex-Attorney General of
India, representing one of the parties instantly, and Shri G. L. Sangh!,
Senior Advocate appearing for the other parties, as to what step need we
take in respect of the Hon'ble but erring Judges of the High Court. --
Conceivably. our action has parameters ranging between total apathy and
H punishment for contempt after initiating contempt proceeding. They have,
SPENCER & CO., v.. VISHWA DARSHAN [PUNCHHI, J.] 297

in all seriousness, in one voice, advised us to show at this juncture judicial A
statesmanship, and let the present order go on record, more as .a reminder
and a message, travelling far and wide, less as a warning solely to. uphold
and preserve the independence and majesty of the Supreme Court, as the
highest Court of Justice in the Sovereign Republic of India; a pillar of the
body politic, established under the Constitution, conferred with plenary
powers under Article 141, 142 and 144 of the constitution. We appreciate B
and value their advice. We would rather remain advised on a matter like
this , for then we are on sure ground.

The Article above referred to are reproduced hereafter as a reminding
exercise:

Article 141 :
c
"LAW DECLARED BY SUPREME COURT TO BE
BINDING ON ALL COURTS- The law declared by the
Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the
territory offudia."
D
Article 142 :
"ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS OF
SUPREME COURT AND ORDERS AS TO DISCOVERY,
ETC. (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction may pa$s such decree or make such order as is E
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter
pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such
manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by
Parliament and until provision in that behalf is so made, in
such manner as the President may by order prescribe. F
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf
by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole
of the territory of India, have all and every power to make
any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any
person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the G
investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself."

Article 144 :

"CIVIL AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES TO ACT IN AID
OF THE SUPREME COURT. All authorities, civil and H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the
Supreme Court."

Ex facie courtesy is the blend of our order of January 14, 1994.
Outwardly it is neither commanding in nature nor explicitly in terms of a
direction. Such is not the sheen and tone of our order, meant as it was, for a
B high constitutional institution, being the High Court. It comes from another
high constitutional institution (this Court) hierarchically superior in the
corrective ladder. When one superior speaks to another it is always in
language sweet, soft and melodious; more suggestive than directive.
Judicial language is always chaste.

C Traditions and norms in this regard, well established and followed in
this country since· time immemorial, are best reflected in the 'Song
Celestial', the Bhagavad Gita. It would for the purpose be opposite to tum
to the 18th Chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, containing the concluding
portion of the dialogue between Lord Krishan, the Best of Beings,
(Purushotamma) and Arjuna, the Best of Hllll!ans, (Narotamma), both
D superiors in themselves. Verse 63 in the words of Lord Krishan is:

guhyad guhyataram maya
vimrishayaitad eshneshena
yathecchasi tatha kuru

TRANSLATION
E
Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all
knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you
wish to do.

(Emphasis ours)
F
Verse 73 containing the answering words of Arjuna is :

nashto mohah smritir labdha
tvat prasaddan mayachyuta
sthito'smi gata sandehah
G kari_shye vachanam tava

TRANSLATION

0 infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I have regained my memory
by Your mercy, and I am now firm and free from doubt and am prepared to
.H act according to Your instructions. (Emphasis ours)
SPENCER & CO., v. VISHWA DARSHAN [PUNCHHI, J.] 299

For Arjuna, the freedom given to act as he wished to, was an illusion; A
acting in conformity with the instructions of Krishna a bounden duty. This
message has perceptibly percolated down as part of Indian Culture,
philosophy and behavioural setting the tenor in the Constitution for inter
action between the high constitutional authorities and institutions. One
needs only to be aware of this thought with which the Constitution is
soaked. B
Recently, on a lesser aberration , this Court in Mis. Bayer India Ltd.
and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, [1993] 3 SCC 29 had
occasion to strike a sad note in the following words :

"5. We are saddened to notice that in spite of the Court's C
request contained in this order dated February 6, 1991, the
High Court has not disposed of the review petition till now.
The High Court was requested to dispose of the said writ
petition within four months from the date of the said order
and, at any rate, by September 30, 1991. It is more than two
years since the order was made. While we certainly respect D
the independence of the High Court and recognise that it is a
co-equal institution, we cannot but say, at the same time, that
the constitutional ·scheme and judicial discipline requires that
the High Court should give due regard to the orders of this
Court which are binding on all courts within the territory of
India. The request made in this case was contained in a E
judicial order. It does no credit to either institution that it has
not been heeded to. We hope and trust that the delay in the
disposal of the review is either accidental or on account of
some or other procedural problem. Be that as it may, the
present situation would not have arisen if only the review
petition had been disposed of within the time contemplated in F
the order dated February 6, 1990 ........ "

"6. In this view ofthe matter, the I. A. is disposed ofwith·the
following directions:

(1) We reiterate our request to the High Court to dispose of G
the review petition expeditiously, at any rate within two
months of this ordf1r.

(2) ············

(3) ........ . H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A The case which we are .dealing with is far more angular because there
is a deliberate and conscious obstruction, put and recorded by the Hon'ble
Judges of the High Court, even when the judicial order of this Court dated
14-1-1994 was before them, in support of the prayer for an early durated
hearing of the appeal. The case in hand is of a negative or reverse action,
-
whereas Mis Bayer India's case was barely of inaction, far less in gravity.
B
The !lfore-narrated words we think, presently, are enough to assert the
singular constitutional role of this Court, and correspondingly of the
assisting role of all authorities, civil or judicial, in the territory of India,
towards it, who are mandated by the constitution to act in aid of this Court.
That the High Court is one such judicial authority covered under Article
c 144 of the constitution is beyond question. The order dated 14-1-1994 of
this Court was indeed a judicial order and otherwise enforceable throughout
the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. The High Court
was bound to come in aid of this Court when it required .the High Court to
have its order worked out. The language of request oftenly employed by
this Court in such situations is to be read by the High Court as an
D obligation, in carrying out the constitutional mandate, maintaining the writ
of this Court running large throughout the country.

Therefore, in these circumstances, we upturn the order of the High
Court dated August· 1s, 1994 and reiterate our request to it to dispose of
O.S.A. Nos. 69-73of1993 expeditiously, at any rate now within one month
E from the date of communication of this order, as this court awaits the result
thereof. Order be communicated to the High court forthwith. Copies thereof
for information be also sent to the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench
with our utmost respect.

The special leave petition be listed on January 31, 1995.
F c.
B.K.M.