Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar
- Government of India, on 28th March, 2001, issued a notification under the provisions of Section
41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short,the Act') read with Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short,the Rules’) for implementation of the provisions of the Act. This
notification sought to introduce a new scheme regulating issuance and fixation of High Security
Number Plates. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Act, the Central Government
issued an order dated 22nd August, 2001 which dealt with various facets of manufacture, supply
and fixation of new High Security Registration Plates (HSRP). The Central Government also issued
a notification dated 16th October, 2001 for further implementation of the said order and the HSRP
Scheme. Various States had invited tenders in order to implement this Scheme. - A writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.41 of 2003 was filed in this Court challenging the
Central Government’s power to issue such notification as well as the terms and conditions of the
tender process. In addition to the above writ petition before this Court, various other writ petitions
were filed in different High Courts raising the same challenge. These writ petitions came to be
transferred to this Court. All the transferred cases along with Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2003 were
referred to a larger Bench of three Judges of this Court by order of reference dated 26th May, 2005
in the case of Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 364], as there
was a difference of opinion between the learned Members of the Bench dealing with the case. The
three Judge Bench finally disposed of the writ petitions vide its order dated 30th November, 2004
reported in Association of Registration Plates v.
Union of India Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India [(2005) 1 SCC 679]. While
dismissing the writ petition and the connected matters, the Bench rejected the challenge made to the
provisions of the Rules, statutory order issued by the Central Government and the tender conditions
and also issued certain directions for appropriate implementation of the Scheme. - Now, we would examine certain principles of law which would normally guide the exercise of
judicial discretion in the realm of contempt jurisdiction. `Contempt’ is an extraordinary jurisdiction
of the Courts. Normally, the courts are reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings under the
provisions of the 1971 Act. This jurisdiction, at least suomoto, is invoked by the courts sparingly
and in compelling circumstances, as it is one of the foremost duty of the courts to ensure
compliance of its orders. The law relating to contempt is primarily dissected into two main heads of
jurisdiction under the Indian Law: (a) Criminal Contempt, and (b) Civil Contempt. It is now well
settled and explained principle under the Indian contempt jurisdiction that features, ingredients,
procedure, attendant circumstances of the case and the quantum of punishment are the relevant and
deciphering factors.
Section 12 of the 1971 Act deals with the contempt of court and its punishment while Section 15
deals with cognizance of criminal contempt. Civil contempt would be wilful breach of an
undertaking given to the court or wilful disobedience of any judgment or order of the court, while
criminal contempt would deal with the cases where by words, spoken or written, signs or any matter
or doing of any act which scandalises, prejudices or interferes, obstructs or even tends to obstruct
the due course of any judicial proceedings, any court and the administration of justice in any other
63
manner. Under the English Law, the distinction between criminal and civil contempt is stated to be
very little and that too of academic significance. However, under both the English and Indian Law
these are proceedings sui generis. While referring to Justice J.D. Kapoor’s Law of Contempt of
Court, Second Edition, 2010 which mentioned the Phillimore Committee Report –
Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court, of which importantly the following passage can be
noticed:
“4. In England and Wales most forms of contempt have been regarded as of
criminal character, and as such, are called “criminal contempts”. In
Scotland contempt of court is not a crime nor is a distinction between
“criminal” and “civil” contemptsrecognised. Scots law regards contempt of
court as a chapter of a law sui generis. This difference of approach is of
little more than academic significance in modern practice, but the Scottish
explain certain peculiar elements in its operation and procedure. What is of
particular importance is that it is branch of the law in which breaches are
investigated by a special and summary procedure and where, once
established, they may be severely punished.” - Under the Indian Law the conduct of the parties, the act of disobedience and the attendant
circumstances are relevant to consider whether a case would fall under civil contempt or a criminal
contempt. For example, disobedience of an order of a court simplicitor would be civil contempt but
when it is coupled with conduct of the parties which is contemptuous, prejudicial and is in flagrant
violation of the law of the land, it may be treated as a criminal contempt. Even under the English
Law, the courts have the power to enforce its judgment and orders against the recalcitrant parties. - In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring
whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to
constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to
obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and
obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The Government Departments are
no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per
orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever
there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected
of the Government Department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or
clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches
the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible
inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally
not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders would reflect the
attitude of the concerned party to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the
administration of justice. In the case of Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra [(1995) 2 SCC 584], this
Court held that `judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all
individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of
not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of
adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development
of the society. Dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs’. - Another very important aspect even of the Civil Contempt is, `what is the attribution of the
contemnor?’ There may be cases of disobedience where the respondent commits acts and deeds
leading to actual disobedience of the orders of the court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the
court openly, intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some other cases of
civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of a dormant or passive behaviour on
the part of the contemnor. Such would be the cases where the contemnor does not take steps and
64
just remains unmoved by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no positive/active
role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result
in violation of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt. - It is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a passive/negative or an active/positive
behaviour of a contemnor but at best, it can be a relevant consideration for imposition of
punishment, wherever the contemnor is found guilty of contempt of court. With reference to
Government officers, this Court in the case of E.T. Sunup v. Canss Employees Assoc.. [(2004) 8
SCC 683] took the view that it has become a tendency with the Government officers to somehow or
the other circumvent the orders of the Court by taking recourse to one justification or the other even
if ex-facie they are unsustainable. The tendency of undermining the court orders cannot be
countenanced. Deprecating practice of undue delay in compliance with the orders of the court, this
Court again in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. [(2001) 5 SCC 309] observed :
“…..clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal Corporation. Even if
there was not deliberate or wilful disregard for the court orders, there has
clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and approach towards them. Though no
further action in this matter need be taken for now, but such lethargic
attitude if continues may soon become contumacious.” - It is also of some relevancy to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active
contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result.
Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial
system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of
the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to
the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be
respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. GodavarmanThirumulpad’s case [(2006) 5 SCC
1]. The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even
more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance
raised by the public at large or public spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the
Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive
authority. It is where the State and its instrumentalities have failed to discharge its statutory
functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that the courts are called upon to
interfere in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction, to ensure maintenance of the rule of law.
These are the cases which have impact in rem or on larger section of the society and not in
personamsimplicitor. Courts are called upon to exercise jurisdiction with twin objects in mind.
Firstly, to punish the persons who have disobeyed or not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their
past conduct. Secondly, to pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the contempt
jurisdiction as a tool for compliance of its orders in future. This principle has been applied in the
United States and Australia as well. For execution of the orders of the court even committal for an
indefinite term has been accepted under Australian law [Australasian Meat Industry Employees
Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty. Ltd. (1986) 161 CLR 98 (Australian High Court)] and
American law, though this is no longer permissible under English Law. While referring to detention
of a person for a long period to ensure execution of the orders in Re Nevitt [117 F. 448, 461 (1902)]
Judge Sanborn observed that the person subjected to such a term `carries the keys of his prison in
his own pocket.’ Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can hardly be
offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in complying with the orders of
the courts has also received judicial criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep
theexecution of the court’s orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even dormant
behaviour by the officers in highest echelons in the hierarchy of the Government in complying with
65
the directions/orders of this Court certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in
complying with the orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the
prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it
undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to ManiyeriMadhavan
v. Inspector of Police, Cannanore [AIR 1993 SC 356] and Anil RatanSarkar and Ors. v.
HirakGhosh and Ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 21].
Even a lackadaisical attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be a
sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure
compliance of the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period. - Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that for years together the State
of Haryana has failed to comply with the directions of this Court and implement the scheme. It has
not only caused prejudice to the public at large but has even undermined the dignity of this Court.
The attitude of the State of Haryana and the respective officers has been lackadaisical and of willful
disregard. Despite repeated orders they have failed to take effective steps and whatever steps were
taken the same are not in conformity with law. The repeated Orders of this Court have failed to
bring any results from the recalcitrant State. The repeated opportunities and extension of time did
not help in expeditious progress in the matter. On the contrary, there is apparent disobedience of the
Orders of this Court and no compliance with the Orders of this court, by their completely passive
and dormant behaviour. This behaviour, besides causing serious problems in the effective
implementation of statutory scheme, has even undermined the dignity of this Court and impinged
upon the basic rule of law. At the cost of repetition, we may notice that there is not even a word of
explanation as to why no steps were taken by the State of Haryana for a long period of seven years
and why tender has not been awarded till date. The vague averments made in the affidavit are
nothing but a lame excuse to somehow avoid the present proceedings. The State of Haryana and the
concerned officers, namely, the Secretary, Transport and the Commissioner, State Transport
Authority have violated the Orders of this Court and are liable for the consequences of such
disobedience. - It was expected of the officers in-charge and particularly the Secretary, Transport and
Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the State of Haryana to at least carefully read the
orders of this Court and ensure their implementation in their correct perspective. We would have
expected such high officers of the State to act fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with the
orders of this Court. If the concerned State would have taken timely and appropriate steps in
accordance with the law and the orders of this Court, it would have not only saved the time of the
Court, which it had spent on repeated hearings, but would have also saved the public money that it
had spent so far. - We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Secretary, Transport and the
Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the State of Haryana is guilty of willful
disobedience/non-compliance of the orders of this Court, particularly the orders dated 30th
November 2004, 7th April 2011 and 30th August 2011. Having found them guilty under the
provisions of the 1971 Act and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, we punish the
Secretary, Transport and Commissioner, State Road Transport Authority of the State of Haryana as
under :
i) They are punished to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default, they shall be liable to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days;
ii) We impose exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State of Haryana, which amount, at the first
instance, shall be paid by the State but would be recovered from the salaries of the erring
officers/officials of the State in accordance with law and such recovery proceedings be concluded
within six months. The costs would be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
66
iii) In view of the principle that the courts also invoke contempt jurisdiction as a tool for
compliance of its orders in future, we hereby direct the State Government and the
respondent/contemner herein now to positively comply with the orders and implement the scheme
within eight weeks from today. Copy of this order be circulated to the Chief Secretary/Competent
Authority of all the States/U.T.s. It is ordered accordingly.
