Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Contempt of Court

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...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Contempt of Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags