If Officials Can Pay Costs For Disobedience, Frivolous Litigants Must Pay For Abuse Of Contempt Jurisdiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition with costs of ₹50,000, holding that the proceedings were a clear abuse of the judicial process and were pursued despite full knowledge that the underlying order had already been set aside in appeal [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 201].Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a contempt petition with costs of ₹50,000, holding that the proceedings were a clear abuse of the judicial process and were pursued despite full knowledge that the underlying order had already been set aside in appeal [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 201].
Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon the official respondents but also upon the frivolous litigants. If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such as the present one, the erring petitioners should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials."
These observations were made while hearing a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the Court's earlier order dated February 16, 2024 in Rajbir Singh Kuhar and others v. State of Haryana and others.
The contempt petition was filed alleging deliberate and intentional disobedience of the order dated February 16, 2024. However, during the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's notice that the State of Haryana had challenged the said order by way of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 2075 of 2024).
The Division Bench, by order dated May 28, 2025, had allowed the appeal and set aside the very order whose alleged violation formed the basis of the contempt petition.
Taking note of the record, the Court observed that despite being fully aware of the appellate order setting aside the original judgment, the petitioners chose to initiate and continue contempt proceedings.
The Court held that there was no disobedience on part of the respondents, who had acted in accordance with law. The petitioners' conduct amounted to a “gross abuse of the process of law”. Such frivolous litigation contributes to the already heavy pendency before courts.
Reiterating settled principles, the Court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction, must be exercised with caution and circumspection, is attracted only in cases of wilful and intentional disobedience, cannot be invoked to harass officials or settle personal scores.
"The instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants. The time and resources of this Court are limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances that merit judicial consideration," it added.
Accordingly, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioners and directed that the amount be paid to the respondent. It ordered that in case of default, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Dismissing the contempt petition, the Court underscored that judicial time and resources must be preserved for genuine grievances and not wasted on meritless litigation.
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate and Mr. Gurasis, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
Title: VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. JITENDER KUMAR IAS