As per case facts, the petitioner, KS Raju Legal Trust, filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of previous court orders regarding the implementation of the Right of Children to ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
COCP-3425-2025
(O&M)
Reserved on: 18.03.2026
Pronounced on: 26.05.2026
Uploaded on: 26.05.2026
KS Raju Legal Trust … Petitioner
Vs.
Ms. Anindita Mitra, IAS and others … Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Argued by: Dr. Jagmohan Singh, petitioner in person.
Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Beant Singh Seemer, Sr. Standing Counsel
for respondent no. 2-
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
The instant contempt petition has been instituted under Section
11 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’), alleging willful disobedience of the orders
dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) and 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by
a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-PIL-285-2024.
2. CWP-PIL-285-2024 was instituted by the petitioner (KS Raju
Legal Trust), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ
of Certiorari quashing Rule 7(4) of the Punjab Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Punjab
RTE Rules, 2011”). Further, a Writ of mandamus was also sought directing
the Respondent no. 3(therein) CBSE to ensure that admissions by CBSE
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 2
affiliated schools in Punjab for the academic year 2025-2026 onwards are
carried out strictly in accordance with the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws and
the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(RTE) Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “RTE Act, 2009”). Further
directions were sought to ensure that private unaided schools in Punjab
discharge their obligations under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009
along with interim directions to such schools to keep 25% seats in Class-I or
pre –school, as applicable, vacant during the pendency of the writ petition.
3. The Division Bench, vide interim order dated 19.02.2025,
passed the following directions:-
“xxx xxx xxx xxx
Prima facie, it appears that the provisions of Rule 7(4) of Punjab
RTE Rule, 2011 is in the teeth of the Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE
Act, 2009. It is settled by the principles of interpretation of statute
that in case of conflict between statutory rules and the Act, the
Act prevails.
In view of above, as an interim measure it is directed that all
private unaided recognised schools satisfying the criteria laid
down in sub clause (iv) of Clause (n) of Section 2 of 2009 Act
shall reserve 25% of seats in Class I, to be filled up exclusively by
children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged group
living in the neighbourhood of the school to provide free and
compulsory education.
The functionaries of State of Punjab are directed to ensure
compliance of this order for admission to 2025-26 session.
List on 27.03.2025.”
4. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondent submitted a
compliance report before the Division Bench on 21.03.2025, stating that a
notification dated 20.03.2025 had been issued omitting rule 7(4) of the RTE
Rules, 2011 and further a communication dated 21.03.2025 had also been
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 3
issued, calling upon all the field officers to strictly comply with the order
dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Division Bench.
5. The Writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated
09.04.2025, with the following directions:-
“1. This Court, while taking cognizance of the matter, which
is a Public Interest Litigation, on 19.02.2025 passed an interim
order directing all the private unaided recognised schools to
reserve 25% of seats in Class I, to be filled up exclusively by
children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged group
living in the neighbourhood of the school concerned to provide
free and compulsory education, in terms of Section 12 (1) (c) of
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 (in short “the RTE Act, 2009”).
2. This Court was compelled to issue the aforesaid
interim direction, since there was an apparent conflict between
the provisions of the Punjab Rights of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011, in particular Rule 7 (4), and
the mandate of Section 12 (1) (c) of the RTE Act, 2009.
3. Affidavit dated 21.03.2025 of the Secretary to
Government of Punjab, Department of School Education, filed
by the State of Punjab, reveals that vide notification issued on
20.03.2025 (Annexure R-1), the Department of School
Education, Government of Punjab, has carried out amendment
in the Punjab Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Rules, 2011, by deleting Rule 7 (4) of the said Rules.
4. In view of the above, fundamental prayer of the
petitioner contained in prayer Clause (i) of the petition is
rendered infructuous. Thus, this Court need not enter into the
academic exercise of assessing the vires of Rule 7 (4) of the said
Rules of 2011, which is no more on the Statute books.
5. So far as the other prayers are concerned, this
Court disposes of this petition with a direction to the State of
Punjab that the RTE Act, 2009 be followed to the hilt while
making admissions in Class I and in case, there is any conflict
between the Provincial Rules of 2011 and the Central Act of
2009, then the provisions of the Central Act would prevail.
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 4
6. Petition stands disposed of.”
6. Alleging willful disobedience of the aforesaid directions, the
instant contempt petition has been instituted. It has been averred that despite
explicit directions issued by the Writ Court vide orders dated 19.02.2025 and
09.04.2025, the same were not complied with. It is further the case of the
petitioner that no admissions were done by the respondents in terms of the
provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009. The petitioner has also
averred that the information sought by him under Right to Information Act
clearly reveals utter non-compliance of the directions issued by the Writ
Court.
7. The contempt petition has been opposed by way of a reply of
short affidavit of the Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab,
Department of School Education, in which it has been averred that there is
no willful or deliberate disobedience of the directions contained in the orders
dated 19.02.2025 and 09.04.2025. It was initially stated in the reply that in
compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 19.02.2025, the
notification dated 20.03.2025 had been issued by the Department of School
Education, Punjab, omitting Section 7(4) of Punjab RTE Rules 2011 and
further issued a communication dated 21.03.2025 to all the District
Education Officers (Secondary and Elementary) for implementation of
Section 12(1) (c) of the RTE Act, 2009. Still further vide
order/communication dated 14.08.2025 issued by the State of Punjab,
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were also issued, stipulating the
strict compliance of the condition of reservation of 25% seats in
Nursery/LKG/UKG/Class-I (whichever be the entry level class of the
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 5
school) to the Economically Weaker Sections and Disadvantaged Groups,
besides, the eligibility criteria; neighbourhood criteria; prohibition on
capitation fee; fee reimbursement procedure and establishment of the
Grievance Redressal Mechanism. It has been averred that the directions have
been complied with except for the delay, which was not in the control of the
respondents.
8. In the subsequent reply by way of an additional affidavit of the
Administrative Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Education,
filed in compliance of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court
directing the respondents to give a timeline of the action taken pursuant to
order dated 19.02.2025, it has been averred that after the issuance of the
notification dated 20.03.2025 and letter dated 21.03.2025, the Government
Schools as also the Private Unaided Schools have started to enroll eligible
candidates during the Academic Session 2025-26. It has been further
asserted that the Department has also finalized Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO),
namely Indus Action Initiatives for further streamlining of the
implementation process of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009. It has
also been averred that as per the said MOU, an online portal shall be
developed for the Department to carry out the admissions under EWS/DG
Category by maintaining a complete transparency. The respondents have
also given a timeline regarding the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the
RTE Act, 2009, with the averments that the admission process has already
commenced in the Academic Year 2025-26. It has further been averred that
as per the data collected, 476 children found to be belonging to the EWS and
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 6
DG categories, have been admitted in the Private Unaided Schools across
the State against the said 25% quota.
9. Further in the additional affidavit dated 09.03.2026, it has been
averred that the Department had again issued detailed guidelines dated
06.01.2026 for implementation of the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) of the
RTE Act, 2009 for the upcoming academic session. It has been submitted
that, in terms of the said guidelines, the Department had initiated the process
for registration of Private Unaided Schools on the Punjab RTE Admission
Portal upto 12.01.2026. The said process had thereafter been extended upto
19.01.2026 and again upto 28.01.2026.
It has been further averred that the
Department had issued instructions dated 10.02.2026 regarding verification
of the details submitted by the Private Unaided Schools on the Punjab RTE
Admission Portal for admissions pertaining to the academic session 2026-
27. It has been further submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid instructions,
the concerned Block Primary Education Officers (BPEOs) were in the
process of verifying the data furnished by the Private Unaided Schools
registered on the Punjab RTE Portal. It has also been stated that the portal
was likely to be opened for student registration from the third week of
March, 2026 so as to facilitate admissions for the upcoming academic
session 2026-27.
10. In the additional affidavit filed by respondent no.1, it has been
stated that pursuant to the interim order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the
Division Bench, the respondent- department issued Gazette Notification
dated 20.03.2025 and consequential directions to all District Education
Officers for implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009. The
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 7
affidavit further disclosed that a grievance redressal mechanism was also
established by designating the District Education Officers as Grievance
Redressal Officers. It was also stated that at present 6772 schools out of
total 7234 schools have registered on the portal. It has further been stated
that the process of registration of Private unaided schools on the portal has
substantially been completed and the Department is presently undertaking
verification of geo-locations, seat availability and other related parameters
through the concerned authorities. The affidavit further reflects that
necessary preparatory steps for implementation of Section 12 (1)(c) of the
RTE Act, 2009 for the academic session 2026-27 have already been
undertaken and the web portal is expected to become fully operational
shortly, whereafter admissions under the said category shall be conducted in
a transparent and uniform manner.
11. Heard petitioner in person and learned State counsel.
12. The petitioner, while arguing in person, submitted that the Writ
Court, had issued clear and categoric directions in its order dated 09.04.2025
that the State of Punjab shall follow the RTE Act, 2009 to the hilt, while
making admission in Class-I and in case there was any conflict between the
Provincial Rules, 2011 and the Central Act of 2009, then the provisions of
Central Act would prevail. While making reference to the replies filed on
behalf of respondent No.1, it was argued that there was no compliance of the
said directions at all and it was the stand of the said respondent that the
SOPs issued pursuant to the notification dated 20.03.2025, had been
followed for the Academic Session 2025-26, but that too, is incomplete
information.
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 8
13. The petitioner further argued that he had sought information
under the Right to Information Act, as regards the compliance of the
directions issued by the Writ Court, but a perusal of the said information
shows that nothing had been done. It was further argued that the SOPs were
issued by respondent No.1 in a post haste manner but neither the portal had
been set up by the respondents nor any guidelines had been issued and as a
result of thereof, the parents were unable to apply for admission of their
children.
14. It was further argued that this Court in its order dated
01.09.2025, had clearly firmed a prima facie opinion there had been a willful
disobedience of the order dated 19.02.2025 and 09.04.2025 passed by the
Writ Court. It was also argued that the information regarding an online
portal proposed to be shortly made operational, given by respondent No.1 in
the affidavit dated 01.09.2025 is misleading. It was further argued by the
petitioner that similarly affidavit dated 23.09.2025, contained contradictory
stand of respondent No.1, wherein again, it was stated that as per the
Memorandum of Understanding, an online portal shall be developed.
15. While making reference to Section 18 of the RTE Act, 2009, it
was argued that the Section clearly stipulates that on the contravention of the
conditions of recognition, the prescribed authority shall by an order in
writing, withdraw the said recognition and any person who establishes or
runs a school without obtaining a certificate of recognition or continues to
run a school after withdrawal of recognition, shall be liable to fine, which
may extend to one lakh rupees. It was argued that despite there being glaring
violations of the said provisions, respondent No.1 did not de-recognize the
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 9
contravening private unaided schools. It was further argued that the said
facts were also brought to the notice of respondent No.2 but nothing was
done.
16. An argument was also raised that during the pendency of the
contempt petition, the petitioner had been subjected to illegal detention,
intimidation and obstruction of lawful activities of his Trust. It was thus
argued that the State Authorities are also liable to be held for the criminal
contempt.
17. Per contra, learned State counsel representing respondent No.1,
submitted that there was no willful disobedience on the part of the
respondents. It was submitted that in the replies filed by respondent No.1, it
was clearly mentioned that Rule 7(4) of Punjab RTE Rules, 2011 had
already been omitted and SOPs had also been formulated. It was further
submitted that as by the time, the SOPs was to be implemented, Academic
Session 2025-26 was already over. It was, however, argued that the same
would be implemented strictly for the Academic Sessions 2026-27. It was
thus argued that there was no willful disobedience of the directions
contained in the orders dated 19.02.2025 and 09.04.2025 passed by the Writ
Court. However, learned State Counsel tendered an unconditional apology
for delay, if any, occurred in compliance of the directions issued in the
aforesaid order.
18. As regards the alleged illegal detention of the petitioner, the
additional affidavit dated 1.10.2025 was filed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, East, Amritsar. Pursuant to which it was argued by
the learned state counsel that a written complaint was submitted by the local
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 10
residents apprehending disturbance on account of the proposed
seminar/camp sought to be organized by the petitioner along with Nihang
organizations inside Gurudwara Sahib. Pursuant thereto, police officials
were deployed at Gurudwara Shaheed Baba Jivan Singh to maintain law and
order. It has further been argued that as more residents gathered at the spot
and the vehicles of the petitioner and his supporters got stuck in the crowd,
the petitioner was respectfully seated in a government vehicle for security
reasons and, on his request, he along with his supporters was dropped at
Valla Bypass. It was also argued that the petitioner had been in the habit of
publicizing the issue out of context and which was why, he had created a
ruckus for which the authorities had to act accordingly in order to maintain
law and order situation.
19. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner in
person and learned State counsel.
20. Concededly, interim order dated 19.02.2025 was initially
passed directing the respondents to fill up 25% of the seats in Class 1 from
children belonging to the weaker sections and disadvantaged groups living
in the neighbourhood of the school to provide free and compulsory
education. It was also ordered that the directions would be complied with for
admission to the Session 2025-26. The writ petition was disposed of on
09.04.2025 with a direction to the State of Punjab that the RTE Act 2009 be
followed to the hilt while making admissions in Class 1. In compliance of
the aforesaid directions, the respondents are on affidavit, to state that
notification dated 20.03.2025 was issued by the Department of School
Education, Punjab, vide which Rule 7 (4) of the RTE Rules, 2011 was
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 11
omitted and a communication dated 21.03.2025 was issued to all the District
Education Officers for implementing Section 12 (1) (c) of the RTE Act
2009. A communication dated 14.08.2025 was also issued by the State of
Punjab issuing standard operating procedures stipulating strict compliance of
the condition of reservation of 25% seats in Nursery/LKG/UKG/Class 1 (as
per the entry level of the school) to the economically weaker sections and
disadvantaged groups. It has been averred that the directions had been
complied with in letter and spirit albeit with some delay which, as per the
respondents, was not within their control.
21. In the additional affidavit dated 23.09.2025, the timeline of
events was also given;
Sr.
No.
Description Date
1 Cabinet Memorandum approved to omit Rule 7(4) of
“The Punjab Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Rules, 2011.”
20.03.2025
2 Rule 7(4) omitted vide notification of the Govt. 20.03.2025
3 Govt. issued instructions to Director, School
Education (Elementary) and All District Education
Officers (Elementary) regarding omission of Rule
7(4) and implementation of Section 12(1)(c) in the
State of Punjab.
21.03.2025
4 Director, School Education (Elementary) endorsed
this letter to All District Education Officer (EE/SE),
Deputy-District Education Officers (EE/SE), Block
Primary Education Officers, School Principals and
Heads regarding omission of Rule 7(4) and
implementation of Section 12(1)(c) in the State of
Punjab.
24.03.2025
5 District Education Officers’ further endorsed and
circulated the instructions of the Govt. and directions
of the Hon’ble Court to all the Private Unaided
Schools.
24.03.2025
to
30.03.2025
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 12
6 During this time, regular meetings/VCs were held
with NIC, Punjab, Rajasthan and NGO
representatives regarding creation for online
admission system for Economic Weaker Section
(EWS) and Disadvantaged Group (DG) quota.
April 2025
to June 2025
7 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued to all
District Education Officers (Elementary/Secondary).
14.08.2025
8 Admissions have begun in Private unaided schools
through offline platform as of now.
Academic
Year 2025-
26
21.1 The additional affidavit also states that 476 children belonging
to EWS and disadvantaged groups had been admitted in the private unaided
schools across the State against the 25% quota.
22. On 04.02.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
“Before proceeding further, the Administrative Secretary,
Department of School Education, Government of Punjab, is directed to
file an affidavit apprising the Court as to whether the directions issued
by the Division Bench have been complied with for the upcoming
academic session or not.
The needful be done within a period of ten days.
List on 10.03.2026.
To be taken up in the urgents.”
23. In compliance with this, an additional affidavit dated
09.03.2026 was filed in which, apart from the averments which were made
in the previous affidavits, it has been averred that on 06.01.2026, the
department has again issued detailed guidelines for the implementations of
the provisions of section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act, 2009 for the upcoming
session. It has been averred that the department has already initiated the
process of registration of private unaided schools on the Punjab RTE
Admission Portal up to 12.01.2026 after which, it was extended up to
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 13
09.01.2026 and thereafter to 28.01.2026. It has been averred that vide
communication dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure R-8), instructions have again
been issued regarding verification of details submitted by private unaided
schools on the Punjab RTE Admission Portal with regard to admission for
the academic session 2026-27. It has been averred that the portal is likely to
be opened for the student registrations with effect from 3rd week of March
so as to facilitate admissions during the upcoming academic session 2026-
24. As regards the allegations levelled by the petitioner that he was
restrained from holding a camp to spread awareness as regards the
provisions of the Act, a detailed affidavit has been filed, reference to which
has been given while detailing the facts of the case. Having examined the
allegations and the response, this Court does not find anything lacking on the
part of the respondents. Nothing has been found on the part of the
respondents which could have been said to be contumacious.
25. Now, we come to the issue as to whether the delay in
compliance was willful. The question which would, therefore, arise for
consideration is whether the delayed compliance constitutes willful
disobedience, so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under the 1971
Act.
26. A Division Bench of this Court traced the entire law on
contempts in the case of
Court on its motion
vs. N.S. Kanwar, 1995 (1)
RCR (Crl.) 201:-
“12. The idea of contempt of court has emerged with the
emergence of the rule of law and generally speaking any
conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 14
law into disrepute or disrespect or any act which interfere with
the administration of justice is contempt of court.
13. In India the history of "law of contempt" can be
traced as early as in 1560 (Mughal period). Instances can be
found in Tabaquat quoted by sterling in "crime and
punishment in Mughal India". While Akbar was on his way
to Punjab, Shah Abdul Mohwali in Jagrana of Hajar wanted
to salute him while seated on his horse. Akbar felt annoyed
and handed him over to Shahabuddin Ahmed Khan to be
kept in custody as a prisoner. In Kautilya's Arthasastra,
details can be found regarding the theory of contempt of
King and King's Council. Even judges who violated law
were held liable for punishment. Kautilya was of the view
that all persons who violated law were to be punished
including who administer law and in fact in the later case
the punishment would be mere severe.
14. Oswald in his work on 'contempt of Court' defines
contempt as any conduct that tends to bring the authority
and administration of law into dis-respect of disrepute or to
interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during
litigation.
15. The law of contempt of court in the modern sense as
developed in our country is on the pattern of English Law.
Source to punish contempt was an inherent power in
England with all the courts of record. As soon as the courts
of record were established India under different charters,
the power to punish contempt was necessarily given to these
courts. When the Constitution of India came into force in
1950 some provisions relating to contempt matters were also
included in it. The contempt of the Supreme Court and the
High Courts as topics for legislation have been mentioned in
the Union list and Concurrent List. In the year 1952, the
Parliament enacted the contempt of Courts Act, 1952. After
examining the law of contempt which developed during a
period of almost two decades, the Parliament enacted the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Under the Act of 1971, the
term 'Contempt' has been defined in section 2, while section
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 15
2(b) defines Civil Contempts, section 2(c) defines 'Criminal
Contempt'. For the purpose of the present case, it is
sufficient to make reference to section 2(a) and (b) of 1971
Act:-
"2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires
(a) 'Contempt of Court' means civil contempt or
criminal contempt; (b) 'Civil Contempt' means wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court or wilful
breach of an undertaking given to a court." "The
above quoted definition is in consonance with the
views expressed by the English and Indian Courts
from time to time and the Parliament in India has
tried to give a concrete shape to the law of contempt
by enacting 'Contempt of Courts Act, 1971'. The
object of contempt proceedings is primarily to protect
the public confidence in the system of administration
of justice.”
16. In Brahm Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1954
Supreme Court 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underlined
the object of contempt proceedings in the following words:-
“The summary jurisdiction exercised by superior
courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists
for the purpose of preventing interference with the
course of justice and for maintaining the authority of
law as is administered in the courts. The object of
contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to
Judges personally from imputations to which they
may be exposed as individuals, it is intended to be a
protection to the public whose interests would be very
much affected if by the act or conduct of any party,
the sense of confidence which people have in the
administration of justice by it is weakened."
17. In Aligarh Municipal Board v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor
Union and others, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1767, the
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 16
"The contempt proceedings against a person who has
failed to comply with the courts order serves a dual
purpose; (1) vindication of the public interest by
punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion
to compel the contemner to do what the law requires
of him."
18. In Advocate General Bijar v. Madhya Pradesh, Khair
Industries, 1980(3) SCC 311, the Supreme Court held:-
"It may be necessary to punish as a contempt, a
course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery
of the judicial process and which thus extends it
pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action
and affects the interest of the public in the
administration of justice. The Court has the power to
commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect
the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the
expression "contempt of Court" may seem to suggest,
but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public
that the administration of justice shall not be
prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.
"It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its
active manifestation against obstruction and
outrage."
19. In Hedkinson v. Hedkinson, 1952(2) All England
Reporter 567, it has been held:-
"It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every
person against or in respect of whom the order is
made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it
unless and until the order is discharged. The
uncompromised nature of this obligation is shown by
the fact that it extends even to cases where the
persons affected by the order believes it to be
irregular or even void."
Again in Jennison v. Backer, AIR 1972(1) All England
Reporter 997 Curtish Releigh, J. observed:-
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 17
"The law should not be seen to sit by simply, while
those who defy it go free and those who seek its
protection loose hope;"
In Bardkanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, AIR 1972 Supreme
Court 2466, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"The contempt of court is disobedience to the court
by acting in opposition to the authority, justice,
dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or
disobedience dignity of the court's order. it also
signifies such conduct as tends to bring the authority
of the court and the administration of law into
disrepute (vide 17 (Corpus Juris Secundum pages 5
and 6; Contempt by Edward N. Dancel (1939) End.
page 14, Oswald's Contempt of Court (1910) Edn.
pages 5 and 6)."
20. These authorities clearly show that every one howsoever
high he may be, is bound to carry out the courts order. The
order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is binding
on all concerned. Those who disregard the Court's order, do
so at their own peril. No one can think himself above the law
and the court is under a duty to see that confidence of the
public in the institution of courts is not shaken by the
executive authorities by their disregard to the orders of the
Court.”
27. In Niaz Mohammad and others
vs. State of Haryana and
others, AIR 1995 SC 308, it was held by a Three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court of India that before a contemner is punished for non-
compliance of the directions of a Court, the Court must not only be satisfied
about the disobedience but should also be satisfied that such disobedience
was willful and intentional:-
“9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines "Civil contempt
to mean "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 18
direction, order writ or other process of a court... Where the
contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an
order of a Court made in favour of a party, it is a civil
contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order
or direction has been made can move the Court for initiating
proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with
a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or
direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like an
execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The
Party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled
to the benefit of such order. The court while considering the
issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be
punished for not having complied and carried out the
direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts
and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the
framers of the act while defining civil contempt, have said
that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court, Before a
contemner is punished for non compliance of the direction of
a court, the court must not only be satisfied about the
disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but
should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful
and intentional. The Civil Court while executing a decree
against the judgment debtor is not concerned and bothered
whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was
wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the
court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence
thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person
who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the
proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before
any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court
has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful
and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular
case, brought to the notice of the Court, the Court is
satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but
such disobedience is the result of some compelling
circumstances under which it was not possible for the
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 19
contemner to comply with the order, the Court may not
punish the alleged contemner.”
28. Recently, in the case of A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through
LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao and another (Civil Appeal Nos.6732-6733
of 2009, decided on 19.08.2025), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring
to the judgment in the case of “Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam
Godha and others, 2003(11) SCC 1, observed that contempt jurisdiction is
intended to uphold the majesty of law and not to settle personal grievances.
Similarly, in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and another, 2006(11)
SCC 114, it was held that in a case of civil contempt, the breach must be
deliberated and intentional.
29. If the instant case is tested on the touchstone of the principles
enunciated in various judgments, as referred to above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no willful disobedience nor is the intent
contumacious. The exercise involved large-scale administrative coordination
at the State level and could not have been completed instantaneously. The
Affidavits filed by the Respondent no.1 demonstrate that the State
authorities had been taking steps from time to time towards compliance of
the directions issued by this Court. Such circumstances cannot justify laxity
in complying with the orders of the Court. However, at the same time, the
element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt,
cannot be inferred merely on account of delay in implementing the
directions.
COCP-3425-2025 (O&M) 20
30. That being so, the prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings
is declined and rule stands discharged. The instant contempt petition is
accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
Pronounced on : May 26, 2026
vcgarg/p
Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Legal Notes
Add a Note....