Allegations against Court Order - Applicants alleged that the Court recorded a statement/consent in its order dated 17th May 2024, which was not made by their counsel, amounting to an imputation against the Court. The Court deprecated such reckless allegations, emphasizing trust in counsel's statements and warning that such claims may necessitate affidavits to verify counsel's...
Allegations against Court Order - Applicants alleged that the Court recorded a statement/consent in its order dated 17th May 2024, which was not made by their counsel, amounting to an imputation against the Court. The Court deprecated such reckless allegations, emphasizing trust in counsel's statements and warning that such claims may necessitate affidavits to verify counsel's authority. Considering the applicants are public sector companies and their contention that counsel lacked authority, the Court recalled the order dated 17th May 2024, restoring the appeals at the applicants' risk, to be listed on 3rd March 2025. Applicants directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- per application to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within three weeks as a condition precedent. Applications and related contempt petition disposed of accordingly. (Para 1 – 3) Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. SLS Power Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 183
CBI Investigation - Breach of Stay Order - CBI registered FIR despite Supreme Court's interim stay - Contempt petition filed - CBI officer offered unconditional apology, citing mistake - Remedial steps taken - Apology accepted, contempt petition disposed. (Para 12) Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : 2025 INSC 433 : (2025) 5 SCC 149
Civil Contempt - Wilful disobedience - Delayed compliance - Adjudication of new claims in contempt proceedings - Contempt petitions were filed by Petitioner alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court's order dt. January 17, 2018, which directed the respondent bank to pay outstanding dues within 3 months - Delay was attributed to administrative difficulties following the merger of banks and difficulty in retrieving legacy records - While there was a delay in payment, the material on record didn't prove a wilful intent – Held, delay in complying with the Court's direction without any wilful or contumacious intent doesn't invite contempt of court - Rejected the claim for pensionary benefits citing that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to raise new claims or seek reliefs not granted in original proceedings - Considering the prolonged litigation since 1980s and the decade long delay in disbursing retirement dues, Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to award a lump sum payment to bring the matter to a close - Directed the respondent bank to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the LR of deceased petitioner as compensation for the protracted delay - Petition dismissed. [Paras 16-21] A.K. Jayaprakash v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 847 : 2025 INSC 1003
Compensation – Delay in Determination and Disbursal – Held, the appellants were deprived of their legitimate compensation for over 22 years due to the inaction and lethargy of the State and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). The delay violated the appellants' constitutional right under Article 300-A, which guarantees the right to property, mandating adequate and timely compensation for deprivation of property. The Court found that despite the statutory framework requiring prompt disbursal, the compensation was determined only in 2019 after contempt proceedings were initiated, using the market value from 2011 as the base. It was held that awarding compensation at the 2003 market value would result in gross injustice and render Article 300-A meaningless. In exercise of its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to determine compensation based on the market value as of April 22, 2019, along with statutory benefits under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act. Additionally, the judgment and orders of the High Court's Division Bench were set aside, and the appellants' writ petition was allowed. The Court clarified that the inter se dispute between the State, KIADB, and Respondents 6 and 7 regarding the delay in compensation payment must be resolved as per the agreements between them, without affecting the appellants' entitlement. Respondents 6 and 7 were granted liberty to pursue remedies in law if aggrieved. Appeals allowed; fresh award to be determined within two months based on the 2019 market value; statutory benefits to be provided. Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : (2025) 7 SCC 580
Compliance with Court Orders - Delay and Obstination - Harassment of Daily Wage Workers - The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Territory, observing that the case presented a "glaring and textbook example of obstination" by state officials who took 16 years to comply with a High Court order. The Court expressed shock at the delay and the repeated harassment of poor daily wage workers through cryptic orders that disregarded the spirit of the 2007 High Court order. While the Court considered imposing exemplary costs and recommending disciplinary action against the delinquent officers, it refrained from doing so as contempt proceedings were pending before the Single Judge. The Court directed the Single Judge to expedite the contempt proceedings on a weekly basis to uphold the majesty and sanctity of law. (Para 2 – 4) Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Abdul Rehman Khanday, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 303
Conflicting orders by two judges - Forgiveness vs. Punishment - Role of Bar and Bench – Held, castigating lawyers over small mistake may affect their career - Order was passed by Supreme Court arising from conflicting orders passed by two Judges of this Court, this matter was placed before a three-judge bench by CJI - Supreme Court agreed with the views expressed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, stating that the majesty of law lies not in punishing but in forgiving a person who acknowledges their mistake - Bar and Bench are like two wheels of the Golden Chariot of Justice, working in tandem - Majesty of law lies not in punishing someone but forgiving them for their mistakes - Both advocates have rendered apology and both advocates have expressed their remorse with promise not to repeat this in future - Application dismissed. [Paras 8-13] N. Eswaranathan v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 777
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 12 - Power to punish and forgive - Statutory Scheme of Apology – Precedents - Ratio Decidendi vs. Obiter Dicta – Held, the power to punish for contempt necessarily carries the concomitant power to forgive when a contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance - Courts must exercise contempt jurisdiction with circumspection, ensuring the power is not used as a personal armor for Judges or a sword to silence criticism - Once a contemnor expresses sincere remorse and tenders an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity, the Court should examine if such an apology satisfies the statutory parameters under Section 12 for discharge or remission of sentence - While the majesty of law must be preserved, Section 12 recognizes human fallibility - The proviso and Explanation to Section 12 empower the Court to discharge a contemnor or remit a sentence if the apology is bona fide, even if it is qualified or conditional - In the absence of material suggesting an apology lacks bona fides, Courts should consider remitting the sentence in accordance with law - A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides - The binding element of a judgment is its ratio decidendi - the principle derived from the application of law to specific facts—and not every observation or isolated sentence. Earlier decisions can only be applied as precedents where the factual matrix is materially similar - Appeal allowed. [Relied on. Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi (1996) 6 SCC 44; Royal Medical Trust v. Union of India (2017) 16 SCC 605; Paras 9-10] Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1192 : 2025 INSC 1408
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 19 - Once a High Court Judge finds a party guilty of contempt, another Single Judge of the same court cannot re-examine or contradict that finding, as it violates judicial propriety and exceeds jurisdiction. Such action amounts to a Single Judge exercising appellate powers over a coordinate bench, which is impermissible. Post-contempt finding, the only issues for consideration are whether the contempt has been purged and the appropriate punishment. The proper recourse for an aggrieved party is an appeal under Section 19 before a Division Bench. (Paras 18 & 19) Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 469
Criminal Contempt - Deprecation of scandalous remarks against Judiciary - The Court strongly deprecated "highly irresponsible" and "attention-seeking" comments by a Member of Parliament, who alleged that the CJI was responsible for "civil wars" and that the Supreme Court was inciting "religious wars" in the wake of judicial interventions in Waqf (Amendment) Act petitions. Such statements scandalize the Court, lower its authority, interfere with justice administration, and reflect ignorance of constitutional courts' roles. However, no contempt proceedings were initiated, as courts are not "fragile as flowers" and public confidence remains unshaken by "absurd" or "ludicrous" critiques. Judicial wisdom prioritizes values like free press, fair trial, and community trust over personal protection via contempt powers. (Para 5 - 10) Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 547 : 2025 INSC 647
Disobedience of High Court Order—Demolition of Slum Dwellers' Structures—Leniency in Sentencing—Rule of Law. Held, in a contempt proceeding arising from the deliberate violation of High Court interim orders restraining eviction and directing consideration of house site applications, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction for civil contempt but modified the sentence imposed by the High Court (two months' simple imprisonment and ₹2,000 fine) to demotion by one hierarchical level (from Deputy Collector to Tahsildar) and a fine of ₹1 lakh, payable within four weeks. Promotional avenues post-demotion to be considered from the date of the order. The Court emphasized that disobedience of judicial directions by public authorities, however high-ranking, undermines the foundation of the rule of law essential to democracy, and no leniency can excuse callous actions displacing vulnerable slum dwellers. While recognizing the "majesty of law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving" and factoring in the contemnor's family hardships (including education of minor children), the Court rejected pleas for complete exoneration, observing that the contemnor ought to have anticipated such consequences before deploying 88 police personnel to raze structures and render families homeless, in defiance of explicit High Court warnings. The decision balances deterrence with humanitarian considerations, sending a "message" that adamant defiance of court orders will invite proportionate professional repercussions without total impunity. The appellant, then serving as Tahsildar in Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, ignored two High Court single-judge orders dated September 13, 2013, and December 11, 2013—issued in writ petitions by slum dwellers seeking house site pattas (land grants)—which mandated consideration of their eligibility within fixed timelines and prohibited disturbance of possession or forcible evictions. Despite these restraints, he orchestrated demolitions on December 6, 2013, and January 8, 2014, using police force to remove 88 personnel-assisted encroachments claimed as overnight third-party structures. Contempt petitions followed, leading to the High Court's finding of willful disobedience, upheld on appeal by the Division Bench. The appellant's Supreme Court challenge invoked family welfare and post-facto inquiries questioning the petitioners' occupancy, but the Court prioritized judicial authority over such defenses. Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 571 : 2025 INSC 678
Enrolment Fees - Contempt Petition - Bar Councils can't collect any amount as “optional fee” during enrolment - Supreme Court closed a contempt petition after the Bar Council of India (BCI) affirmed its commitment to ensuring State Bar Councils (SBCs) comply with judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 which prohibits charging enrolment fees beyond the stipulated amount under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 - Supreme Court clarified that no “optional” fees can be collected by any State Bar Council or the BCI, and fees must strictly adhere to the direction in the main judgment. [Paras 4-9] K.L.J.A. Kiran Babu v. Karnataka State Bar Council, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 786
Issue of non-payment of compensation to land owners whose land was acquired for the construction of a water tank. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of the State authorities, who had failed to pay the compensation despite a final award in favor of the land owners. The Court directed to ensure the release of the compensation amount, along with interest and punitive costs. The Court also mandated an explanation from the Collector and warned of contempt proceedings if the payment was not made by the stipulated date. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with these directions, and the Court clarified that its observations were not against any individual officer. Kondiram Manikrao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 54
Law made by Parliament or Legislature Held, that passing of an enactment after the order of this Court by the legislature of State of Chhattisgarh cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court. Every state legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law. Interpretative power of a Constitutional Court does not analyze a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an act of contempt of court. Legislative function includes power to enact as well as amend laws. Legislature has power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgement or to validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court by amending or varying it to give effect to judgement of Court. This is the core of doctrine of separation of powers. Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a court. Promulgation of an enactment is only an expression of the legislative function and cannot be said to be an act in contempt unless it is established that the statute so enacted is bad in law constitutionally. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity. Relied on Indian Aluminium Co. vs. State of Kerala (1996) 7 SCC 637. Held, that prayers in contempt petition are in the nature of writs of mandamus which cannot be granted as such in Contempt petition. Petitions contending that State of Chhattisgarh's enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 amounted to contempt of court were dismissed. Nandini Sundar v. State of Chattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 662
Lawyer's Duty - Transfer petition based on scurrilous allegations against a High Court Judge - A transfer petition was filed seeking transfer a criminal petition - Grounds for transfer petition included allegations that the High Court of Telangana's single Judge showed partiality and procedural discrimination by summarily curtailing the petitioner's argument to 5 minutes - Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice for contempt of court to the alleged contemnor no. 1, and the counsel who drafted the petition due to the “scandalous and scurrilous remarks” made against High Court – Held, a misconception exists among some lawyers who believe that their duty to the client supersedes their duty to the court - This misconception must be rooted out - Counsel who sign applications with 'matter scandalizing the court' without verifying the prima facie grounds are themselves guilty of contempt - A lawyer's duty is to advise their client against making such allegations - Supreme Court condemned the trend of lawyers criticizing judges without reason and practice of seeking transfers by alleging that a political figure's involvement will prevent a litigant from getting justice in a particular state - High Court judges are constitutional functionaries who are not inferior to Supreme Court judges and enjoy the same immunity - It is duty of Apex Court to protect them - Making scandalous allegations against them based on involvement of a political figure scandalizes the entire administration of justice - Alleged contemnors tendered an apology to the Supreme Court but court directed that it would have been more appropriate to apologize to that Judge. [Paras 7-17] In Re: N. Peddi Raju, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 806 : 2025 INSC 989
Liberal democracy - In a landmark pronouncement affirming the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and the media in a liberal democracy, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order directing the removal of a Wikipedia page detailing a defamation suit by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikipedia editors. The High Court had deemed the page "prima facie contemptuous" for reporting the judge's warning that Wikipedia risked shutdown in India absent deletion of allegedly defamatory content against ANI. The Court held that courts, as public institutions, must remain receptive to public discourse, debates, and constructive criticism, including on matters sub judice. Vigorous debate by the public and press on important issues—even pending before courts—is essential for democratic vitality and judicial introspection. The judiciary and media, as foundational pillars of India's constitutional framework, must mutually supplement each other to sustain a thriving liberal democracy. However, critics must refrain from scandalizing the court or judges, warranting contempt action where established (per Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer's principles). Courts cannot proactively censor media by mandating content deletions; such overreach undermines free speech. The ruling echoes the Court's prior observations in the farmers' protests matter, rejecting blanket prohibitions on public protests during sub judice proceedings. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2025 INSC 656
Mediation is a consensual process and cannot be thrust upon unwilling parties, particularly in contempt proceedings where compliance with judicial orders is at stake. (Para 9, 10, 12) Rupa and Co. v. Firhad Hakim, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 233 : 2025 INSC 245
Mediation - Validity of High Court's order referring a contempt matter to mediation without mutual consent - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order referring a contempt matter to mediation without the consent of both parties. Mediation is a consensual process and cannot be thrust upon unwilling parties, particularly in contempt proceedings where compliance with judicial orders is at stake. The Court criticized the High Court's approach of referring the matter to mediation based solely on the State's willingness to offer alternative land, despite opposition from the appellant. The Supreme Court directed the State to comply with the High Court's earlier judgment dated 10th February 2020, failing which the Chief Secretary was ordered to appear before the Court. High Court's mediation order set aside; State directed to comply with High Court's judgment. (Para 9, 10, 12) Rupa and Co. v. Firhad Hakim, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 233 : 2025 INSC 245
Misleading the court to obtain an order with no intention of compliance constitutes civil contempt. (Paras 30, 36, 38 & 39) Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association v. Shaji Augustine, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 480 : 2025 INSC 567
Retired High Court Judges – Medical Reimbursement – Supreme Court clarifies that medical reimbursement for retired High Court Judges, their spouses, and dependants shall be borne by the State Government of either the Judge's first appointment or the State where the High Court from which the Judge retired is situated, addressing cases involving judicial transfers. Non-compliance with court orders on medical facilities, including cashless treatment, reimbursement for private hospital treatment without prior approval, and uniformity in benefits, may lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1981. States directed to file fresh affidavits, with matter listed for April 29, 2025. Justice V.S. Dave v. Kusumjit Sidhu, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 470
Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Uttarakhand High Court for entertaining a plea and staying a sanction order that was passed during the pendency of proceedings before the Apex Court concerning illegal constructions and felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve - The High Court, no doubt, is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to this Court. However, in judicial matters, when this Court is seized of the matter, it is expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away - Notice is issued to Shri Rahul (IFS), Chief Conservator of Forests, to remain present and show cause as to why an action for committing contempt of this Court be not initiated against him. [Paras 9 - 13] In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1046
Unauthorised Tree-Felling in Delhi Ridge – Delhi Development Authority (DDA) – Constitutional Morality – Public Interest – Afforestation Measures – The Supreme Court held DDA officials in contempt for unauthorised tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge without prior court approval for a road-widening project to facilitate access to CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital. Two violations identified: (i) failure to seek court permission, and (ii) deliberate concealment of tree-felling, constituting criminal contempt. Contempt proceedings against former DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda closed due to his dissociation from DDA. Other DDA officials fined ₹25,000 each as an environmental fee, with formal censure, without prejudice to departmental action. The Court directed: (i) mandatory disclosure of pending court proceedings in all notifications/orders related to afforestation, tree-felling, or ecologically impactful activities; (ii) urgent afforestation by DDA and GNCTD within three months, overseen by a court-constituted committee; (iii) identification of 185 acres for afforestation, costs borne by DDA; (iv) joint compliance reports by DDA and Forest Department; and (v) a one-time levy on beneficiaries of the road-widening project. The Court emphasized constitutional morality, social justice, and public interest in providing medical access to paramilitary personnel, while condemning the incident as a “classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach” due to non-compliance, disregard for court orders, and environmental degradation. Ignorance of pending court proceedings no longer a valid defense. Afforestation plan to be framed and implemented under committee supervision, with periodic compliance reports. (Paras 16, 21, 28, 32 & 33) Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 637 : 2025 INSC 784 : AIR 2025 SC 2901