Disobedience Of Court's Orders Attacks Rule Of Law On Which Democracy Is Based : Supreme Court

While demoting a Deputy Collector for acting in defiance of an Andhra Pradesh High Court order, the Supreme Court yesterday sent a strongly worded message through its order that howsoever high an authority may be, it cannot disobey orders passed by any Court in the country.

"A message requires to be given to everybody that no one, howsoever high he may be, is above law. When a Constitutional Court, or for that matter, any Court, issues any direction, every authority howsoever high he or she may be, is bound to respect said orders and comply with the same. A disobedience of the orders passed by the Court attacks foundation of rule of law on which democracy is based", noted the order dictated by Justice BR Gavai, who is next-in-line to be the Chief Justice of India.

A bench of Justices Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and confirmed the petitioner-Deputy Collector's conviction for contempt of Court, while modifying his sentence. As a punishment, the Deputy Collector, who was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment by the High Court, was demoted to the post of Tahsildar and directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Insofar as his spending 48 hours in jail would have led to his dismissal from service, the Court took a lenient view keeping in mind the petitioner's family, including two daughters attending classes 11th and 12th.

Put briefly, the petitioner had approached the top Court against the High Court order which held him guilty of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment. Initially, the Supreme Court came down heavily on him and indicated that he would have to do prison-time, pay heavy costs to all the persons who suffered due to his actions, and suffer demotion. Subsequently, however, the Court asked the petitioner if he was willing to suffer demotion to avoid jail. When he refused, the Court indicated that if he remained adamant, it would not only dismiss the petition but also ensure that he is not re-instated. At Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka's request for time to convince the petitioner, the matter was listed yesterday.

After dictating the order, Justice Gavai told Bharuka that had the petitioner agreed on the very first day, it would have only stopped his 2-3 increments. But given his conduct, the petitioner brought the order on himself, added Justice Masih.

Making the order reportable, Justice Gavai conveyed that a message needs to be sent to the society that none can violate directions passed by any Court. "We want the message to go throughout the country that nobody would tolerate disobedience of the Court's order", said the judge.

Case Title: TATA MOHAN RAO Versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Click here to read the judgment