PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR.versusADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS.

                        [2012] 12 S.C.R. 818


A                     PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR.
                                  v.
        ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
                     WELFARE AND ORS.
         Suo Motu Contempt Petition Nos.195-196 of 2012
B                                 n
             Civil Appeal Nos.4318 and 4319 of 2012
                       DECEMBER 13, 2012
         [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
c
         Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
        s.12 - Apology tendered by contemnor - Consideration
   of - Held: Consideration of an apology as contemplated
D under Explanation to s.12(1) is not a panacea to avoid action
  in law universally - While considering the apology and its
  acceptance, the Court inter alia considers a) the conduct of
  the contemnor prior and subsequent to the tendering of
  apology - If the conduct is contemptuous, prejudicial and has
  harmed the system and other innocent persons as a whole,
E it would be a factor which would weigh against the contemnor;
  and b) the stage and time when such apology is tendered -
  An apology which is not bonafide and has been tendered to
  truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive of escaping
  the consequences of flagrant violation of orders of the Court
F and causes discernible disrespect to the course of
  administration ofjustice, cannot be permitted - The Court has
  to draw a balance between cases where tendering of an
  apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to inflict
  punishment on the contemnor - Words and Phrases -
G "bonafide".
         s. 12 - Plea of contemnor that directions or guidelines
    issued by Supreme Court for general implementation cannot
    invite proceedings under the Act - Held: Not tenable -
H                               818
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF        819
          HEALTH AND FAMILYWaFARE
Violation of general directions issued by Supreme Court A
would attract the rigours of the provisions of the Act - Law
declared by Supreme <;ourt whether in the form of a
substantive judgment infer se a party or directions of a
general nature intended to achieve constitutional goals of
equality and equal opportunity must be adhered to and there B
cannot be an artificial distinction drawn in between such class
of cases - Whichever class they may belong to, a contemnor
cannot build an argument to the effect that the disobedience
was of a general direction and not of a specific order issued
inter se parties - Such distinction, if permitted, shall be c
opposed to the basic rule of law - Once the essentials for
initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court
would initiate action uninfluenced by the nature of the
directions i.e. as to whether the directions were specific in a
/is pending between the parties or were of general nature or
 were in rem.
                                                                0

      While disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012
titled Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., this Court
not only noticed breach of time schedule as well as
various other irregularities that were committed by the E
various stakeholders, but also returned a finding as to
failure of the performance of duties and obligations by
the authorities in accordance with law as stated by this
Court. The Court noticed that there was calculated
tampering with the schedule specified under the F
regulations, and the judgments of the Court with a clear
Intention to grant admission to less meritorious
candidates over candidates of higher merit and a case of
favouritism and arbitrariness and thus the career of the
students of higher merit was jeopardised by the abuse G
and manipulation of provided procedure. Consequently,
direction was given for Initiation of proceedings under the
 provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against
 the defaulting persons and for Issuance of notice.
                                                                H
    820     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A       On behalf of the contemnor Dr. S.L. Adile, it was
   pleaded that the Court may take a lenient view and
   discharge the notice of contempt against the contemnor
   in view of his unconditional, unqualified apology being
   tendered at the very first instance; that the apology
B tendered was bona fide and, thus, should be accepted
   by the Court; that Explanation to Section 12(1) places an
   obligation upon the Court to consider apology in a very
   objective manner and further provides that the Court
   shall not reject the same merely on the ground of it being
C qualified or conditional if it is made bonafidely. Without
   prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the
   contemnor raised contention that every contempt,
  whether initiated on application of a party or suo motu
  by the Court, has to be a result of wilful disobedience of
  the orders of the Court; that wilful disobedience must be
0
  proved as a matter of fact; that directions or guidelines
  issued by this Court for general Implementation cannot
  invite proceedings under the Act, if they are not strictly
  adhered to; that such guidelines may not be within the
  knowledge of a party and, thus, their non-compliance
E may not necessarily be a wilful disobedience of the order
  of the Court bringing the case of a contemnor within the
  rigours of Section 12 of the Act and that Contempt
  proceedings can be initiated when an action is between
  the parties to a /is and not where the Court issues general
F directions.

       Discharging the notice of contempt, the Court
      HELD: 1.1. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory
  way of resolving contempt proceedings. An apology
G tendered at the very initial stage of the proceedings being
  bona fide and preferably unconditional would normally
  persuade the Court to accept such apology, if this would
  not leave a serious scar on the dignity/authority of the
H
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY MINISTRY OF       821
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
Court and interfere with the administration of justice      A
under the orders of the Court. [Para 5] [832-D]

    1.2. 'Bona fide' is an expression which has to be
examined in the context of a given case. It cannot be
understood in the abstract. The attendant circumstances, 8
behaviour of the contemnor and the remorse or regret on
his part are some of the relevant considerations which
would weigh with the Court in deciding such an issue. ·
Where, persistently, a person has attempted to over-reach
the process of Court and has persisted with the illegal act
done in wilful violation to the orders of the Court, it will C
be difficult for the Court to accept unconditional apology
even if it is made at the threshold of the proceedings.
[Para 6] [832-E-G]

     1.3. The facts which will weigh with the Court while D
considering acceptance of an apology are the
contemptuous conduct, the extent to which the order of
the Court has been violated, irresponsible acts on the part
of the contemnor and the degree of interference in the
administration of justice, which thereby cause prejudice E
to other parties. An apology tendered, even at the outset,
has to be bona fide and should be demonstrative of
repentance and sincere regret on the part of the
contemnor, lest the administration of justice be crudely
interfered with by a person with impunity. The basic F
ingredients of the rule of law.·have to be enforced,
whatever be the consequence and all persons are under
a fundamental duty to maintain the rule of law. An
apology which is not bonafide and has been tendered to
truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive of G
escaping the consequences of such flagrant violation of
 orders of the Court and causes discernible disrespect to
 the course of administration of justice, cannot be
 permitted. The Court has to draw a balance between
 cases where tendering of an apology is sufficient, and H
    822    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A cases where it is necessary to inflict punishment on the
  contemnor. An attempt to circumvent the orders of the
  Court is derogatory to the very dignity of the Court and
  administration of justice. A person who attempts to
  salvage himself by showing ignorance of the Court's
B order, of which he quite clearly had the knowledge, would
  again be an attempt on his part to circumvent the process
  of law. Tendering a justification would be inconsistent
  with the concept of an apology. An apology which is
  neither sincere nor satisfactory and is not made at the
c appropriate stage may not provide sufficient grounds to
  the Court for the acceptance of the same. It is also an
  accepted principle that one who commits intentional
  violations must also be aware of the consequences of the
  same. One who tenders an unqualified apology would
  normally not render justification for the contemptuous
0
  conduct. In any case, tendering of an apology is a
  weapon of defence to purge the guilt of offence by
  contemnor. It Is not intended to operate as a universal
  panacea to frustrate the action In law, as the fundamental
E principle is that rule of law and dignity of the Court must
  prevail. [Para 7] [833-A-H; 834-A]
       1.4. Consideration of an apology as contemplated
  under explanation to Section12(1) of the Act is not a
  panacea to avoid action in law universally. While
F considering the apology and its acceptance, the Court
  inter alia considers a) the conduct of the contemnor prior
  and subsequent to the tendering of apology. If the
  conduct Is contemptuous, prejudicial and has harmed
  the system and other innocent persons as a whole, It
G would be a factor which would .weigh against the
  contemnors; and b) the stage and time when such
  apology is tendered. [Para 11] [836-D-F]
     Re: Sanjeev Datta & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 619: 1995 (3)
  SCR 450; All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association v.
H Raghabendra Singh & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 37 4: 2007 (3)
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF        823
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
SCR 816; Ref. East India Commercial Companies Ltd. v.         A
Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893: 1963 SCR 338 and
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors (2008) 10 SCC 1: 2008
(15) SCR 331 - referred to.
     2.1. It is true that Section 12 of the Act contemplates
                                                                8
disobedience of the orders of the Court to be wilful and
further that such violation has to be of a specific order or
direction of the Court. The contention that there cannot be
an initiation of contempt proceedings where directions are
of a general nature as it would not only be impracticable,
but even impossible to regulate such orders of the Court, C
is not acceptable. With the development of law, the Courts
have issued directions and even spelt out in their
judgments, certain guidelines, which are to be operative till
proper legislations are enacted. The directions of the
Court which are to provide transparency In action and D
adherence to basic law and fair play must be enforced and
 obeyed by all concerned. The law declared by this Court
 whether in the form of a substantive judgment Inter se a
 party or are directions of a general nature which are
 Intended to achieve the constitutional goals of equality and E
 equal opportunity must be adhered to and there cannot be
 an artificial distinction drawn in between such class of
 cases. Whichever class they may belong to, a contemnor
 cannot build an argument to the effect that the
 disobedience Is of a general direction and not of a specific F
 order Issued inter se parties. Such distinction, If permitted,
 shall be opposed to the basic rule of law. [Para 16] [838-D·
 H; 839·A·B]
    2.2. The directions which have been Issued In the
cases referred to In the main judgment clearly provide for     G
admission to medical courses In order of merit, for the
process of admission to be transparent and fair, and that
there must be strict adherence to the time schedule
specified in the judgments. The purpose of this is to
ensure that arbitrariness and discrimination do not creep      H
    824     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2012] 12 S.C.R.


A into this process, and equal opportunity is ensured to the
  eligible candidates applying to the medical courses in a
  just and fair manner. These directions are intended to
  serve a greater public purpose and are expected to be
  within the knowledge of all concerned persons besides
B the fact that the law declared by this Court is deemed to
  be known to all concerned. The violation of general
  directions issued by this Court would attract the rigours
  of the provisions of the Act. Whether for such violation
  or non-compliance, the Court would punish a person or
C persons, would always depend upon the facts and
  circumstances of a given case. It is not possible to
  provide any straight jacket formula that is universally
  applicable to all cases. [Paras 17, 18] [839-C-F]
        2.3. The provisions of the Act do not admit any
D discretion for the initiation of proceedings under the Act
   with reference to an order being of general directions or
   a specific order inter se the parties. The sine qua non to
   initiation of proceedings under the Act is an order or
  judgment or direction of a Court and its wilful
E disobedience. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the
   machinery under the Act can be invoked by a party or
   even by the Court suo motu. The power to punish for
   contempt is inherent in the very nature and purpose of
  the Court of justice. In our country, such power is
F codified. It serves at once a dual purpose, namely, as an
  aid to protect the dignity and authority of the Court and
  also In aiding the enforcement of civil remedies. Once the
  essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are
  satisfied, the Court would initiate an action uninfluenced
G by the nature of the direction i.e. as to whether these
  directions were specific in a /is pending between the
  parties or were of general nature or were in rem. [Para 20]
  [840-C-D, F-H; 841-A]
       2.4. Contempt proceedings are intended to ensure
H
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF        825
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
compliance of the orders of the Court and adherence to A
the rule of law. The directions are binding and must be
obeyed by the parties and all concerned stricto sensu. In
fact, the directions of the present kind are to be placed
at a higher pedestal as compared to cases where the
matter is inter se between two parties to the /is as they B
are intended to attain a greater purpose and ensure
adherence to rule of law in a particular process which
otherwise would be arbitrary and violative of
constitutional mandate. [Para 23] [842-C-D]
     Mohd Aslam v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 442: 1994       C
(5) Suppl. SCR 104; Re. M.P. Dwivedi & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC
152: 1996 (1) SCR 347; Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi
Adminsitration (1980) 3 SCC 526: 1980 (3) SCR 855;
Packraft (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director V.S. Mann v.
U.P.F.C. through its M.D. R.M. Sethi and Others (1996) 1       D
SCC 304: 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 179 and Asha Sharma v.
Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences (2012) 7 SCC
389 - referred to.
     3.1. In the case at hand, if one examines the conduct E
of the contemnor Dr. S.L. Adile, he is a person who
cannot plead ignorance to the directions of this Court
inasmuch as he was the officiating Director and
responsible for making admissions not only to the
college in question, but to all the medical colleges in the F
State of Chhattisgarh. It was expected of him to conduct
the admissions strictly on merit, transparently and in
adherence to the schedule and directions contained in
the judgments of this Court. He attempted to violate the
same with impunity. He manipulated the entire process
of admission and directed his subordinates to manage G
admissions of appellants, including his daughter, and on
the other hand misguided the Ministry of Health,
Government of India. There was flagrant violation of the
orders of the Court which has proved prejudicial not only
to the system of admission, but even to the deserving H
    826    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A students who in the order of merit were entitled to get
   those seats. The tendering of apology by him, though at
  the initial stage of the hearings, cannot be accepted by
   the Court inasmuch as violation of the orders of the Court
   is wilful, intentional, and prejudicial. Such conduct, not
B only has the adverse effect on the process of admissions
  and disturbs the faith of people in the administration of
  justice, but also lowers the dignity of the Court by
  unambiguously conveying that orders of this Court, its
  directions and prescribed procedure can be manipulated
c or circumvented so as to frustrate the very object of such
  orders and directions, thereby undermining the dignity of
  the Court.Thus, it is not a case where the Court should
  extend mercy of discharging the accused by acceptance
  of apology, as it would amount to encouraging similar
  behaviour. The contemnor, Dr. S.L. Adile (Director,
0
  Medical Education) wilfully violated the directions of this
  Court and has manipulated the process of selection laid
  down by this Court so as to gain personal advantage for
  admission of his daughter and the other appellant
E thereby causing serious prejudice to other candidates of
  higher merit. He is guilty of the offence of civil contempt
  in terms of Section 12 of the Act, and directed to pay
  Rs.2,000/- as fine. [Paras 12, 13 and 24] [836-F-H; 837-A-
  8, C-E; 843-E-G]
F      3.2. Four other contemnors- the three former
  Assistant Professors, Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Sanjivani
  Wanjari, Dr. P.O. Agrawal and one former Demonstrator
  Mr. Padmakar Sasane, also violated the orders of the
  Court and circumvented the process of selection and
G defeated the very object of the directions issued by this
  Court. They lowered the dignity and authority of the Court
  and, thus, are liable to be punished for violating the
  orders of this Court. Consequently, they are also
  punished and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. [Para
H 28] [847-A-C]
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF        827
          HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
      3.3. The remaining two contemnors- namely Special A
Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and
the Director General, Health Services, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, Government of India were not directly
responsible for violating any order or direction of the
Court. However, there was apparent lack of proper B
supervision and enforcement of the directions issued by
this Court on the part of these contemnors. The ends of
justice would be met by issuing a warning to both these
 contemnors and not to punish them with fine or
 imprisonment. They should be more careful in discharge c
 of their functions and duties in accordance with the
 judgment of this Court and are further directed to ensure
 circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment.of
 Priya Gupta's case to all the Directors, Health Services of
 the respective States, Deans of the Universities holding the
                                                              0
 selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/
  BOS courses as well as to the Dean of all the colleges.
  [Paras 29, 31 and 32] [847-C-D; 848-G-H; 849-A-B]
     D.P. Gupta v. Parsuram Tiwari (2004) 13 SCC 746 -
distinguished.                                                E
                     Case Law Reference:
  1995 (3) SCR 450           referred to     Para 8
  2007 (3) SCR 816           referred to      Para 8          F
  1963 SCR 338               referred to      Para 9
  2008 (15) SCR 331          referred to      Para 9
  1994 ( 5) Suppl. SCR 104 referred to        Para 19
                                                              G
  1996 (1) SCR 347           referred to      Para 21
  1980 (3) SCR 855           referred to      Para 21
  1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 179 referred to         Para 22
                                                              H
    828       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A     c2012) 1 sec 389              referred to      Para 23
      (2004) 13 sec 146             distinguished    Paras 25,26,
                                                     27
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Sou Motu Conmt.
B Pet. (C) Nos. 195-196 of 2012.

                                      IN

    Civil Appeal Nos. 4318 & 4319 of 2012.

C         By Court Motion (for petitoner).
       Mukul Rohtagi, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Siddhartha Chowdhury,
  L. Nidhiram Sharma, Subash Acharya, Purushotham Sharma
  Tripathy, Filza Moonia, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Mukesh Kumar
  Singh, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, D.L.
0
  Chidananda, Sunil Roy, Sushma Suri for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. While disposing of the Civil
E Appeal No. 4318 of 2012 titled Priya Gupta v. State of
  Chhatisgarh & Ors., the Court not only noticed breach of time
  schedule as well as various other irregularities that were
  committed by the various stakeholders, but also returned a
  finding as to failure of the performance of duties and obligations
F by the authorities in accordance with law as stated by this
  Court. The Court noticed that the case in hand was a clear
  example of calculated tampering with the schedule specified
  under the regulations, and the judgments of the Court with a
  clear intention to grant admission to less meritorious
G candidates over candidates of higher merit. To put it simply, it
  was a case of favouritism and arbitrariness. The case in hand
  also demonstrates how either way the career of the students
  of higher merit has been jeopardised by the abuse and
  manipulation of provided procedure. While directing initiation
H
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 829
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts     A
Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") held as under:-

     4.    "We have categorically returned a finding that all the
           relevant stakeholders have failed to perform their
           duty/obligation in accordance with law. Where the
                                                                  8
           time schedules have not been complied with, and
           rule of merit has been defeated, there nepotism
           and manipulation have prevailed. The stands of
           various authorities are at variance with each other
           and none admits to fault. Thus, it is imperative for C
           this Court to ensure proper implementation of
           judgments of this Court and the regulations of the
            Medical Council of India as well as not to overlook
           the arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by
           the concerned authorities/colleges.
                                                                  D
      5.   Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of
            proceedings against the following under the
            provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Let
            notice be issued to the following, to show cause
           why they be not punished in accordance with law., E

           a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family
           Welfare, Union of India.

           b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical Education.
                                                                  F
           c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.
           d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the Selection
           Committee.
           e. Dr. P.O. Agarwal, Member of the Selection           G
           Committee.
            f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of fhe Selection
            Committee.
                                                                  H
    830         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A                 g. Director General, Directorate of Health Services,
                  Union of India.

           5.    Notice be issued returnable in two weeks, on which
                 day the matter shall be listed before this Court.
                 Registry shall maintain separate file for that
B
                 purpose.

           6.    All concerned authorities are hereby directed to
                 carry out the directions and orders contained in this
                 judgment, particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the
c                judgment forthwith. The directions shall be
                 applicable for the academic year 2012-2013 itself.

          54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all concerned
          authorities, forthwith, for strict compliance and adherence,
D         without demur and default.
          55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above
          directions."

        2. In furtherance to the judgment dated 8th May, 2012, the
E Court initiated proceedings against the above defaulting
  persons under the Act and directed issuanceiif notice. Upon
  appearance, time was prayed for on behalf of the contemnors
  to file their reply affidavits and after, they were filed, the
  contemnors were heard at some length by the Court. The stand
F taken by the respective contemnors is distinct and independent.
  However, the stand of contemnors "C" to "F" is somewhat
  common, therefore, it would be appropriate for the Court to deal
  with the case of these contemnors together. The case of
  contemnors 'A' and 'G' is to be considered together and finally
G that of contemnor 'B' will be dealt with separately. First and
  foremost, we would deal with the case of Dr. S.L. Adile, whose
  daughter Akansha Adile is the direct beneficiary of this entire
  process. In the affidavit filed by Dr. Adile, ·it has been averred
  that he was working as a Professor of Ophthalmology in the
H Medical College, Raipur till 1st August, 2006 and Dean
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 831
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)

thereafter in the same college. The Director of Medical A
Education, Chhatisgarh (Dr. Bhola) retired on 31st August,
2006 and being the senior, Dr. Adile was asked to relieve Dr.
Bhola, on 8th September, 2006 temporarily. This is how he
came to be appointed as the Director of Medical Education.
The findings recorded in the order against him which includes B
violation of schedule, moulding the process of selection to
select his daughter and actually providing her a seat in the
 Medical College, Raipur has not been disputed. However, it is
stated that he tenders an unconditional apology to the Court for
 all the acts of omission and commission mentioned in the order c
 dated 8th May, 2012. He prays for the mercy of the Court on
 the ground that he was under suspension for last two years i.e.
 since 23rd July, 2010 and has suffered already. His daughter
 was also asked to pay Rs. 5 lakhs, if she was to continue her
 course in terms of the order dated 8th May, 2012, and therefore, D
 he prays for discharge.

     3. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel appearing
for Dr. S.L. Adile argued in principle that the Court may take a
lenient view and discharge the notice of contempt against the
contemnor in view of his unconditional, unqualified apology E
being tendered at the very first instance. The apology tendered
is bona fide and, thus, should be accepted by the Court.
Explanation to Section 12(1) places· an obligation upon the
Court to consider apology in a very objective manner and further
provides that the Court shall not reject the same merely on the F
ground of it being qualified or conditional if it is made
bonafidely. It is also to be noticed that the Secretary, Ministry
 of Health has specifically disputed that the letter dated 8th
August, 2006 was not issued by the Ministry and is a
manipulated one. This is the letter that has been relied upon G
 by Dr. Adile. Of course, subsequently the said stand was given
 up by him

     4. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the
 contention raised is that every contempt, whether initiated on      H
     832      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A application of a party or suo motu by the Court, has to be a
   result of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Wilful
  disobedience must be proved as a matter of fact. The
  directions or guidelines issued by this Court for general
  implementation cannot invite proceedings under the Act, if they
B are not strictly adhered to. Such guidelines may not be within
  the knowledge of a party and, thus, their non-compliance may
  not necessarily be a wilful disobedience of the order of the Court
  bringing the case of a contemnor within the rigours of Section
  12 of the Act. Contempt proceedings can be initiated when an
C action is between the parties to a /is and not where the Court
  issues general directions.

       5. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of
  resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at the
  very initial stage of the proceedings being bona fide and
D preferably unconditional would normally persuade the Court to
  accept such apology, if this would not leave a serious scar on
  the dignity/authority of the Court and interfere with the
  administration of justice under the orders of the Court.

E           6. 'Bona fide' is an expression which has to be examined
      in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in the
      abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of the
      contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are some of
      the relevant considerations which would weigh with the Court
 F in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a person has
      attempted to over-reach the process of Court and has persisted
     with the illegal act done in wilful violation to the orders of the
      Court, it will be difficult for the Court to accept unconditional
     apology even if it is made at the threshold of the proceedings.
     It is not necessary for us to examine in any greater detail the
G factual matrix of the case since the disobedience, manipulation
     of procedure and violation of th~ schedule prescribed under the
     orders of the Court is an admitted position. All that we have to
     examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide when
     examined in light of the attendant circumstances and whether
I:;! it will be in the interest of justice to accept the same.
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 833
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
        7. The facts which will weigh with the Court while A
considering acceptance of an apology are the contemptuous
conduct, the extent to which the order of the Court has been
violated, irresponsible acts 1 on the part of the contemnor and
the degree of interference in the administration of justice, which
thereby cause prejudice to other parties, An apology tendered, B
even at the outset, has to be bona fide and should be
demonstrative of repentance and sincere regret on the part of
the contemnor, lest the administration of justice be crudely
 interfered with by a person with impunity. The basic ingredients
 of the rule of law have to be enforced, whatever be the c
 consequence and all persons are under a fundamental duty to
 maintain the rule of law. An apology which is not bonafide and
 has been tendered to truncate the process of law with the ulterior
 motive of escaping the consequences of such flagrant violation
 of orders of the Court and causes discernible disrespect to the 0
  course of administration of justice, cannot be permitted. The
 Court has to draw a balance between cases where tendering
  of an apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to
  inflict punishment on the contemnor. An attempt to circumvent
  the orders of the Court is derogatory to the very dignity of the E
  Court and administration of justice. A person who attempts to
  salvage himself by showing ignorance of the Court's order, of
  which he quite clearly had the knowledge, would again be an
  attempt on his part to circumvent the process of law. Tendering
  a justification would be inconsistent with the concept of an
  apology. An apology which is neither sincere nor satisfactory F
  and is not made at the appropriate stage may not provide
  sufficient grounds to the Court for the acceptance of the same.
   It is also an accepted principle that one who commits intentional
   violations must also be aware of the consequences of the
   same. One who tenders an unqualified apology would normally G
   not render justification for the contemptuous conduct. In any
   case, tendering-of an apology is a weapon of defence to purge .
   the guilt ¢'6ffence by contemnor. It is not intended to operate
   as a uriiversal panacea to frustrate the action in law, as the
                                                                     H
    834      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A fundamental principle is that rule of law and dignity of the Court
  must prevail.

        8. In the case of In Re Sanjeev Datta & Ors. [(1995) 3
   SCC 619], this Court while declining to accept an apology
8 tendered by the contemnor observed that any conduct that is
   designed to or is suggestive of challenging the crucial balance
   of power devised by the Constitution, is an attempt to subvert
   the rule of law and is an invitation to anarchy. The institution
   entrusted with the task of interpreting and administering the law
C is the judiciary, whose view on the subject is made legally final
   and binding on all till it is changed by a higher Court or by
   permissible legislative measures. Under a constitutional
   government, such final authority has to vest in some institution
  otherwise there will be a chaos. With these observations, the
  Court declined to accept the apology where statements had
D been made with a malicious attempt to cast aspersions and
  attribute motives to the Court and the same were made
  knowingly by the contemnor. At this stage, we may also notice
  another judgment of this Court in the case of All Bengal Excise
  Licensees' Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. [(2007)
E 11 SCC 374], where the Court while declining to accept an
  apology, punished the contemnors for disobeying the orders of
  the Court. The Court noticed that the respondents were senior
  officers and were expected to know that under the constitutional
  scheme of the country, the orders of the Court have to be
F obeyed implicitly and that orders of this Court and of any Court
  cannot be trifled with. The Court returned a finding that the
  officers had acted deliberately to subvert the orders of the High
  Court evidently and observed :-
        "41. All Respondents 1-4 are senior and experienced
G
        officers and must be presumed to know that under the
        constitutional scheme of this country orders of the High
        Court have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of this
        Court-for that matter any court should not be trifled with.
        We have already found hereinabove that they have acted
H
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 835
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
   deliberately to subvert the orders of the High Court A
   evidently. It is equally necessary to erase an impression
   which appears to be gaining ground that the mantra of
   unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations
   and infractions of the orders of the High Court or of this
   Court. We, therefore, hold them guilty of contempt of court B
   and do hereby censure their conduct. Though a copy of this
   order could be sent which shall form part of the annual
   confidential record of service of each of the said officers,
                                        a
   we refrain from doing so by taking lenient view of the
   matter considering the future prospects of the officers. As c
   already stated, the officers shall not indulge in any
   adventurous act and strictly obey the orders passed by the
   courts of law. The civil appeal stands allowed. Though this
   is a fit case for awarding exemplary costs, again taking a
   lenient view, we say no costs."                              D
     9. The government departments are no exception to the
consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court.
Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience
and would invite action in accordance with law. The orders
passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article E
141 of the Constitution of India. No Court or Tribunal and for
that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this
Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their
smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the
administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably F
suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law
declared by the higher court in the State is binding on
authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they
cannot ignore it. This Court also expressed the view that it had
 become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the G
constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave
 impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages
 chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
 certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence
 developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for H
     836      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 12 S.C.R.


A effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the
  Courts command others to act in accordance with the
  provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it
  is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional
  principle by those who are required to lay down the law. [Ref.
B East India Commercial Companies Ltd. v. Collector of
  Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v.
  Dayanand & Ors ((2008) 10 SCC 1].
                                                          •
          10. Th~se very principles have to be strictly adhered to by
    the executive and instrumentalities of the State. It is expected
c   that none of these institutions should fall out of line with the
    requirements of the standard of discipline in order to maintain
    the dignity of institution and ensure proper administration of
    justice.

D       11. From the above principle, it is clear that f<>nsid~ration
  of an apology as contemplated under explanation to
  Section12(1) of the Act is not a panacea to avoid action in law
  universally. While considering the apology and its acceptance, ·
  the Court inter alia considers a) the. conduct of the contemnor
E prior and subsequent to the tendering of apology. If the conduct
  is contemptuous, prejudicial and has harmed the system and
  other innocent persons as a whole, it would be a factor which
  would weigh against the contemnors; and b) the stag'l! and time
  when such apology is tendered.
F       12. In light of the above principles, if one examines the
  conduct of Dr. S.L. Adile, he is a person who cannot plead
   ignorance to the directions of this Court inasmuch as he was
  the officiating Director and responsible for making admissions
  not only to the college in question, but to all the medical colleges
G in the State of Chhattisgarh. It was expected of him to
  conduct the admissions strictly on merit, transparently and in
  adherence to the schedule and directions contained in the
  judgments of this Court. He attempted to violate the same with
  impunity. He manipulated the entire process of admission and
H directed his subordinates to manage admissions of appellants,
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 837
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
including his daughter, and on the other hand misguided the           A
Ministry of Health, Government of India. There was flagrant
violation of the orders of the Court which has proved prejudicial
not only to the system of admission, but even to the deserving
students who in the order of merit were entitled to get those
seats. No advertisement was effected. There is nothing on             B
record to show that any other candidate had been informed of
the date of admission. At the eleventh hour on 30th September,
 2006, the last date for. admission, very cleverly admission of
 the two appellants was managed by him.

       13. As already noticed, the violations are admitted on the C
  part of this contemnor. The tendering of apology by him, though
  at the initial stage of the hearings, cannot be accepted by ttie
  Court inasmuch as violation of the orders of the Court is wilful,
  intentional, and prejudicial. Such conduct, not only has the
  adverse effect on the process of admissions and disturbs the D
  faith of people in the administration of justice, but also lowers
  the dignity of the Court by unambiguously conveying that orders
· of this Court, its directions and prescribed procedure can be
  manipulated or circumvented so as to frustrate the very object
  of such orders and directions, thereby undermining the dignity E
  of the Court. Administration of justice is a matter which cannot
  be ignored by the Court and the acceptance of apology
  tendered by the contemnor would amount to establishing a
  principle that such serious violations would not entail any
  consequences in law. This would, thus encourage repetition of F
  such offences, rather than discouraging or preventing others
   from committing offences of similar nature as it would have no
   preventive or deterrent effect on persons for committing such
  offences in future. Thus, it is not a case where the Court should
  extend mercy of discharging the accused by acceptance of G
   apology, as it would amount to encouraging similar behaviour.

      14. The contemnor, Dr. Adile, while heavily relying upon
 the factum of his having been placed under suspension by the
 disciplinary authority as well as the direction to his daughter to   H
     838      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A pay Rs.5 lacs for continuing with the medical course to which
  she was admitted, has argued that the Court should take a
  lenient view and accept the apology. We are of the view that
  such a contention cannot be of much advantage to the
  contemnor. These are not the relevant factors for acceptance
B of an apology, however, they may be of some consideration
  while imposing the punishment.

       15. Now, we shall proceed to discuss the legal issues
  raised on behalf of the contemnor that in such cases, the
C proceedings under the Act cannot be taken recourse to.

          16. It is true that Section 12 of the Act contemplates
     disobedience of the orders of the Court to be wilful and further
     that such violation has to be of a specific order or direction of
    the Court. To contend that there cannot be an initiation of
D contempt proceedings where directions are of a general nature
    as it would not only be impracticable, but even impossible to
    regulate such orders of the Court, is an argument which does
    not impress the Court. As already noticed, the Constitution has
    placed upon the judiciary, the responsibility to interpret the law
E and ensure proper administration of justice. In carrying out
   these constitutional functions, the Courts have to ensure that
   dignity of the Court, process of Court and respect for
   administration of justice is maintained. Violations which are
    likely to impinge upon the faith of the public in administration
F of justice and the Court system must be punished, to prevent
   repetition of such behaviour and the adverse impact on public
   faith. With the development of law, the Courts have issued
   directions and even spelt out in their judgments, certain
  guidelines, which are to be operative till proper legislations are
G enacted. The directions of the Court which are to provide
   transparency in action and adherence to basic law and fair play
   must be enforced and obeyed by all concerned. The law
  declared by this Court whether in the form of a substantive
  judgment inter se a party or are directions of a general nature
H which are intended to achieve the constitutional goals of equality
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY MINISTRY OF 839
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
and equal opportunity must be adhered to and there cannot be         A
an artificial distinction drawn in between such class of cases.
Whichever class they may belong to, a contemnor cannot build
an argument to the effect that the disobedience is of a general
direction and not of a specific order issued inter se parties.
Such distinction, if permitted, shall be opposed to the basic rule   B
of law.

     17. The directions which have been issued in the cases
referred to in the main judgment clearly provide for admission
to medical courses in order of merit, for the process of
admission to be transparent and fair, and that there must be         C
strict adherence to the time schedule specified in the
judgments. The purpose of this is to ensure that arbitrariness
and discrimination do not creep into this process, and equal
opportunity is ensured to the eligible candidates applying to the
 medical courses in a just and fair manner.                          D

       18. These directions are intended to serve a greater public
purpose and are expected to be within the knowledge of all
concerned persons besides the fact that the law declared by
this Court is deemed to be known to all concerned. The violation     E
of. general directions issued by this Court would attract the
rigours of the provisions of the Act. Whether for such violation
or non-compliance, the Court would punish a person or persons,
would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a
given case. It is not possible to provide any straight jacket        F
formula that is universally applicable to all cases. All that we
have to examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide,
when examined in light of the attendant circumstances and that
 it will be in the interest of justice to accept the same.

      19. This Court in the case of Mohd Aslam v. Union of India G
 [(1994) 6 sec 442] observed that when we speak of the rule
 of law as a characteristic of our country, no man is above the
 law but that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition,
 is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to
 jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. Respect for law and its H
      840        '
               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 12 S.C.R.


  A institutions is the only assurance that can hold a pluralist nation
    together. One should ensure respect for law as its breach will
    demolish public faith in accepted constitutional institutions and
    weaken the peoples' confidence in the rule of law. It will destroy
    respect for the rule of law and the authority of Courts and will
  B thus seek to place individual authority and strength of principles
    above the wisdom of law.

            20. The provisions of the Act do not admit any discretion
      for the initiation of proceedings under the Act with reference to
      an order being of general directions or a specific order inter
  C se the parties. The sine qua non to initiation of proceedings
      under the Act is an order or judgment or direction of a Court
      and its wilful disobedience. Once these ingredients are
      satisfied, the machinery under the Act can be invoked by a party
      or even by the Court suo motu. If the contention raised on behalf
· D of the contemnor is accepted, it will have inevitable
     consequences of hurting the very rule of law and, thus, the
     constitutional ethos. The essence of contempt jurisprudence is
     to ensure obedience of orders of the Court and, thus, to
     maintain the rule of law. History tells us how a State is protected
  E by its Courts and an independent judiciary is the cardinal pillar
     of the progress of a stable government. If over-enthusiastic
     executive attempts to belittle the importance of the Court and
     its judgments and orders, and also lowers down its prestige and
    confidence before the people, then greater is the necessity for
  F taking recourse to such power in the interest and safety of the
    public at large. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in
    the very nature and purpose of the Court of justice. In our
    country, such power is codified. It serves at once a dual
    purpose, namely, as an aid to protect the dignity and authority
 G of the Court and also in aiding the enforcement of civil
    remedies. Looked at from a wider perspective, contempt
    power is also a means for ensuring participation in the judicial
    process and observance of rules by such participants. Once
    the essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are
 H satisfied, the Court would initiate an action uninfluenced by the
 PRIYAGUPTAANDANR. v.ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 841
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

nature of the direction i.e. as to whether these directions were   A
specific in a /is pending between the parties or were of general
nature or were in rem.
       21. The reliance by the contemnor upon the judgment of
In Re. M.P. Dwivedi & Ors. [(1996) 4 SCC 152], does not B
further the cause of the contemnor. On the contrary, it supports
the view that we are taking. In this case, despite the judgment
of this Court, the accused persons were handcuffed and
brought in the court of learned Magistrate who was a young
judicial officer. Upon initiation of contempt proceedings, it was C
 contended that the officer was not aware of the directions
 issued by this Court. Rejecting the plea of ignorance of law, the
 Court returned a clear finding that there was default on the part
 of the contemnor and disapproval of such conduct was ordered
 to be placed on their personal files. However, the Court did not
.punish them primarily on the ground that they were young judicial D
  officers and had ignored the order of the Court. The directions
  of this Court in the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi
  Adminsitration [(1980) 3 SCC 526] issuing guidelines
  prohibiting such handcuffing itself were, in that sense, of a
  general nature and this Court clearly held that they were E
  required to be obeyed without exception.

     22. Equally, the contemnor cannot draw any advantage
 from the judgment of this Court in the case of Packraft (India)
 Pvt. Ltd. through its Director V.S. Mann v. U.P.F.C. through      F
 its M.D. R.M. Sethi and Others [(1996) 1 sec 304] as that
 was a judgment on its own facts and the Court did not state
 any absolute proposition of law. We may notice that in that
 case, the applicant had participated in the sale of the property
 which was alleged to have been sold contrary to the guidelines G
 issued by the Court and had not taken any steps during that
 period. Since, such steps could be corrected by adopting the
 procedure of judicial review, the Court did not initiate the
 contempt proceedings. The law is well settled that mere
 availability of another legal proceeding does not debar H
    842      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A invocation of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Even
  where execution petitions are filed or an order of injunction is
  issued and if during the course of the proceedings, the act or
  conduct of a non-applicant may be such which would invite the
  proceedings under the Act then such proceedings would not
B be debarred.

        23. As already noticed, contempt proceedings are
  intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court and
  adherence to the rule of law. The directions are binding and
  must be obeyed by the parties and all concerned stricto sensu.
C In fact, the directions of the present kind are to be placed at a
  higher pedestal as compared to cases where the matter is inter
  se between two parties to the /is as they are intended to attain
  a greater purpose and ensure adherence to rule of law in a
  particular process which otherwise would be arbitrary and
D violative of constitutional mandate. In the case of Asha Sharma
  v. Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences [(2012) 7
  SCC 389], this Court held as under :

        "25. Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been
E       a matter of controversy before the courts. The courts have
        consistently taken the view that the schedule is sacrosanct
        like the rule of merit and all the stakeholders including the
       authorities concerned should adhere to it and should in no
       circumstances permit its violation. This, in our opinion,
F      gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it jeopardises the
       interest and future of the students. Secondly, which is more
       serious, is that such action would be ex facie in violation
       of the orders of the court, and therefore, would invite wrath
       of the courts under the provisions of the Contempt of
       Courts Act, 1971. In this regard, we may appropriately refer
G
       to the judgments of this Court in Priya Gupta, State of
       Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Medical Council of India
       v. Madhu Singh, GSF Medical and Paramedical Assn.
       v. Assn. of Self Financing Technical Institutes and
       Christian Medical College v. State of Punjab.
H
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 843
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
   26. The judgments of this Court constitute the law of the A
   land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution and the
   regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are
   statutorily having the force of law and are binding on all the
   parties concerned. Various aspects of the admission
   process as of now are covered either by the respective B
    notifications issued by the State Governments, prospectus
    issued by the colleges and, in any case, by the regulations
    framed by the Medical Council of India. There is no reason
    why every act of the authorities be not done as per the
    procedure prescribed under the Rules and why due c
    records thereof be not maintained. This proposition of law
    or this issue is no more res integra and has been firmly
     stated by this Court in its various judgments which may
     usefully be referred at this stage. (Ref.: State of M.P. v.
     Gopal D. Tttthani, State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical D
     College & Hospital, Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of
    Maharashtra, Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai v. State of
    Gujarat and Harish Verma v. Ajay Srivastava.)"

     24. In view of the above established principle, we have no
hesitation in rejecting even the other contention raised on behalf E
of the contemnor. Having dealt with both the contentions raised
on behalf of the contemnor, we conclude that the contemnor,
Dr. S.L. Adile, has wilfully violated the directions of this Court
and has manipulated the process of selection laid down by this
Court so as to gain personal advantage for admission of his F
daughter and the other appellant thereby causing 'serious
prejudice to other candidates of higher merit. Having held him
guilty of the offence of civil contempt in terms of Section 12 of
the Act, we refrain from awarding him civil imprisonment for the
reasons aforenoticed and award him a penalty of Rs.2,000/- G
as fine.
     Contemnors (Cl to IF) : Ms. Amrita Banerjee Mitra,
     former Assistant Prof. Physiology. Medical College
     Jagdalpur. Chhattisgarh: Dr. Saniivani Wanjari. former       H
     Associate Prof. Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Medical
     844       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 12 S.C.R.


A          College Jagdalpur. Chhattisgarh: Dr. P.O. Agrawal. former
           Associate Prof. Radiology medical College. Jagdalalpur.
           Chhattisgarh and Mr. Padmakar Sasane. former
           Demonstrator Biophysics in the Department of Physiology.
           Medical College Jagdalpur. Chhattisgarh
B
        25. The stand taken by these contemnors in their reply
   affidavit is that Ms. Amrita Banerjee had taken over as acting
   Dean on 1st November, 2006 and she had acted in furtherance
   to the letters issued by the Director. While Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari,
   Dr. P.O. Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar Sasane have stated that
C they were members of the Selection Committee which had
   recommended admission of the two appellants, they also have
   taken up the stand that they had acted as per the directions of
   the Dean. It is further pointed out that the Dean had constituted
   the Committee and required it so as to make recommendations
D for admission. On behalf of Ms. Banerjee, it is stated that she
   had received a letter from the Director of Medical Education
  Office on 30th September, 2006 that the seats should be filled
  according to merit upon establishing contact with the
  candidates. On 30th September, 2006 itself, she had
E constituted the Committee consisting of the other three
  contemnors and, in fact, the Committee conducted its entire
  proceeding and recommended the names of the two
  candidates, i.e. Kumari Priya Gupta and Kumari Akanksha
  Adile and they were granted admission on that very day i.e. on
F 30th September, 2006. The same was intimated to the Director
  of Medical Education Office vide a letter of the same date. All
  these contemnors have relied upon a judgment of this Court in
  the case of D.P. Gupta v. Parsuram Tiwari ((2004) 13 SCC
  746) to contend that if a person acts upon the directions of his
G superior, he is not liable to be punished for contempt. In the
  alternative, they have also tendered unconditional apology
  before this Court.
        26. Firstly, we must deal with the case of D.P. Gupta
    (supra). In that case, the High Court had punished the Vice-
H
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 845
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]

Chancellor for over-reaching the judgment of the High Court by A
exercising his power to condone the break in service for
promotion to the post of Head of Department. The High Court
also punished the Registrar of the University who was stated
to have advised the Vice-Chancellor to act accordingly. The
Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction of the Vice- B
Chancellor of the University noticed that the person concerned
was not the acting Registrar who had advised the Vice-
Chancellor but had merely carried out the order of the Vice-
 Chancellor by issuing the notification, which he was bound to
 carry out. Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant was allowed C
 by this Court. It is obvious that the contemnor in that case had
 not done any act or advised the Vice-Chancellor on any count
 whatsoever. The Vice-Chancellor had issued an order
 condoning the break in service and required the Registrar to
 issue notification in furtherance thereto. In these circumstances, D
 the Supreme Court found that he was not guilty of violating the
 order of the Court as he had merely issued notification as
 directed. Certainly, this case on facts has no application to the
 case in hand. The Dean of the College was expected to act in
 accordance with law. She not only abdicated her responsibilities
 and obligations in conducting a fair and transparent admission E
 to the two remaining seats but, in fact, colluded with Dr. Adile,
  Director of the Health Services in ensuring manipulation of the
  process leading to admission of his daughter and deprived
  more meritorious students of those seats. In her entire affidavit
  or in the letter, she has not averred that any other candidate F
  was informed or contacted on telephone in the entire State,
  which means that all other meritorious and eligible candidates
  were not even informed of availability of the two seats. It was
  her responsibility to ensure that the vacancy of such seats be
  duly intimated to the eligible candidates, which was not done, G
  primarily with the intention to favour the two appellants who have
  been given admission in a most arbitrary manner. It is not even
  disputed before the Court that candidates, who were much
  higher in the order of merit than the two to whom seats were
  awarded, have not got admission to the medical course. It is H
     846      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 12 S.C.R.

A also surprising that within the working hours of the office on 30th
   September, 2006, the entire commotion of awarding seats to
   the two candidates was completed. The scrutinizing of the
   applications and documentation, the holding of the interview
  and even deposit of fees by the appellants was completed on
B that very day. All this could not have happened but for complete
  collusion between the Director, the Dean and the Selection
  Committee. It is also not clear as to why the vacancy position
  was informed by the Dean to the Director on 3oth September,
  2006 though the second counseling had been held between
C 22nd and 23rd August, 2006. It was expected of her to inform
  the vacancy position well in time. Intentionally withholding of this
  information does not speak well of the functioning of the
  Committee.
         27. The members of the Selection Committee were to
D discharge the very onerous duty of ensuring that all the eligible
   candidates had been informed of the vacancy position and they
   were also expected to scrutinise the certificates of eligible
   candidates and recommend admission strictly in order of merit.
   They have not even averred in their affidavit that vacancy
E position was in the knowledge to the eligible persons. It is not
   only improbable but impossible to believe that in the entire State
  and even from the same town, no candidate would have come
  to take admission to the medical courses, had they been
  intimated of the vacancy position. The Committee has not only
F failed to discharge its onerous duty but has even kept all
  principles of fair selection aside and ensured selection of the
  daughter of the Director. In contradistinction to D.P. Gupta's
  case (supra), none of these persons were obliged to carry out
  the directions of the Director to give admission to these two
G candidates. In fact, there was no such direction. These persons
  were not subordinate to the Director or even the Dean while
  performing the duties for filling up the two vacancies as
  members of the Selection Committee. They cannot take shelter
  of bona fide exercise of power in obeying orders of the
H superior.
 PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 847
HEALTH AND FAMILY\NELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     28. In addition to this and for the reasons recorded in the A
earlier part of the judgment, we have no hesitation in holding
that all these four persons have also violated the orders of the
Court and have circumvented the process of selection and
defeated the very object of the directions issued by this Court.
They have lowered the dignity and authority of the Court and, B
thus, are liable to be punished for violating the orders of this
Court. Consequently, they are also punished and directed to
 pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and copy of this order shall be placed
 on their personal file.

      29. Now, we will deal with the case of Mr. Keshav Desiraju, C
Special Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
and of Jagdish Prasad, director General, Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Mr.
Keshav Desiraju has stated in his affidavit that he has been very
serious in maintaining the time Schedule for giving permission D
to new medical colleges taking admissions for MBBS/BDS
courses under Section 10(a) of the Medical Council of India Act,
1956 by 15th July of every year. The permission was stated to
be granted to the said college on 15th July, 2006 for the
academic year 2006-2007. It is further stated that the State of E
Chhattisgarh has contributed only three seats of MBBS at JLN
 Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and no seat was
contributed in the Government Medical College NMDS
Jagdalpur towards Central Pool quota. Thus, the question of
 allotting of seat from the central pool quota did not arise. He F
 further affirms that they shall strictly adhere to the schedule term
 provided under the judgment of the Court.

      30. Dr. Jagdish Prasad in his affidavit has also stated that
 the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur was given
 approval on 15th July, 2006 as per Rules for the academic year G
 2006-07. Admission to 15% quota was completed by 8th
 August, 2006 and the unfilled seats were returned to the
  respective State Governments. According to this Affidavit,
  Kumari Akanksha and Kumari Priya Gupta did not belong to
                                                                   H
     848     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 12 S.C.R.


A All India quota. The Jagdalpur college was granted permission
  for starting the academic procedure for academic year 2006-
  07 by the Government of Chhattisgarh on 14th August, 2006.
  The fake admission of the two candidates came to be known
  to the Department when an application under the Right to
8 Information Act was filed by one Dr. Anil Khakharia in
  September, 2009 upon which the action was taken. The letter
  dated 8th August, 2006 issued by the Director General's office
  was fake. The admission was cancelled vide letter dated 19th
  September, 2010. It is further averred that the Directorate strictly
  adheres to the schedule provided. It is also stated that no
C deviation has been made from the prescribed procedure, time
  schedule approved by the Supreme Court.

        31. From these two affidavits, it is in fact clear that both
   these contemnors are not directly responsible for violating any
D order or direction of the Court. However, they are expected to
   exercise proper control and supervision over grant of.
   recommendation, permission to give admission in the colleges
   and the admission process. The Director General of Health
   Services, Union of India is responsible for maintaining
E transparency in the process of admission to the medical
   colleges. Two things are clear that they ought to have checked
  that the State could not have permitted the college to grant
   admission to the students on or after August 14, 2006 as 15th
   of July, 2006 was the last date for grant of recognition and
F permission to run the medical college. Secondly, when the
  complaint was received, the Ministry as well as the Directorate
  was expected to act with greater expeditiousness and ought
  not to have permitted the wrongly granted admissions to
  continue. In fact, the Government or the Directorate both took
G no action against the institute, even till date. There is apparent
  lack of proper supervision and enforcement of the directions
  issued by this Court on the part of these contemnors.
        32. Having considered the entire spectrum of the matter,
    we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would
H
      PRIYA GUPTA AND Af'.JR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 849
     HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
     be met by issuing a warning to both these contemnors and not A
     to punish them with fine or imprisonment. They should be more
     careful in discharge of their functions and duties in accordance
     with the judgment of this Court and we further direct them to
     ensure circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment of
     Priya Gupta's case to all the Directors, Health Services of the B
     respective States, Deans of the Universities holding the
     selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/BDS        I
      courses as well as to the Dean of all the colleges.           i

          33. In result of the above discussion, contemnor Dr. S.L.
     Adile, Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D. Agrawal . C
     and Mr. Padmakar Sasane are hereby punished and awarded
     the sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The fine should be
     deposited within four weeks from today. In the event of default,
     they shall be liable to undergo civil imprisonment for a period D
     of two weeks. The notice of contempt against them is
..   discharged, however, subject to the observations aforemade.
     B.B.B.                          Contempt Notice discharged.



                                                             •