The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the validity or correctness of an administrative decision taken in compliance with a court's direction cannot be examined in contempt proceedings.

Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while disposing of a contempt petition filed by a college, which alleged wilful disobedience by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) of earlier directions requiring it to decide the college's long-pending application for shifting its B.Ed. college premises.

Petitioner submitted that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE in 2005 to run a B.Ed. course with an annual intake of 100 students. It later sought permission to shift its premises by filing applications in 2007 and 2013.

Alleging that no decision had been taken on the request for several years, the college approached the High Court, which, on January 29, 2026, directed the NCTE to decide the application within six weeks.

When the direction was not complied with, the college initiated contempt proceedings. It contended that despite the Court's repeated directions, the application had remained pending for years.

Petitioner further argued that even the decision eventually taken by the NCTE on June 2, 2026, rejecting its request for shifting of premises, was contrary to the prescribed procedure since no inspection of the proposed premises had been carried out before passing the order.

The NCTE, on the other hand, submitted that the application had already been decided on June 2, 2026 and the decision had been communicated to the college. It argued that after issuance of show-cause notices and consideration of the college's response and documents, there had been no wilful disobedience of the Court's directions.

The High Court held that once the authority had taken a decision on the application, the scope of contempt jurisdiction came to an end.

"Since the Respondents have now taken a decision on the Application on 02.06.2026, the validity of the said decision cannot be examined in the present contempt proceedings," it said.

As such, the Court refused to pass any order in the matter.

Appearance: Mr. Akhilesh K. Srivastava, Mr. Rishabh Kumar & Ms. Ritu Kumari, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Anuj Kapoor & Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 & 2

Case title: R.S.C. College v. Ms. Sukhgeet Kaur, Member Secretary And Anr

Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 1054/2026

Click here to read order