1. Wilful disobedience of court order by a government official — sentence of imprisonment — application for remission rejected — subsequent review application filed by the State. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 951
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Versus
T.R. DHANANJAYA AND ANOTHER.
I.A. No. 6 of 1995 in Contempt Petition No. 234 of 1994
Decided on 14-9-1995
Important Points
Responsibility and accountability of officers for the implementation of court orders.
Subject
Criminal Law - Disobedience of Court Orders
Act Referred
Headnote
Disobedience - Review of Sentence - Court rejects State's application for reviewing the order of remission of sentence
Fact of the Case:
Mr. J. Vasudevan found guilty of wilful disobedience of the court's order and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment. State of Karnataka filed an application for reviewing the order of remission of sentence, which was rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State's application for reviewing the order of remission of sentence was not maintainable as the appeal or application could only be initiated by the person found guilty. The court also emphasized the responsibility and accountability of officers for the implementation of court orders.
Issues: The main issue was the review of the order of remission of sentence filed by the State of Karnataka.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State's application for reviewing the order of remission of sentence was not maintainable as it could only be initiated by the person found guilty. The court also emphasized the responsibility and accountability of officers for the implementation of court orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State's application for reviewing the order of remission of sentence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The State contends that since the court order has been implemented and the State is primarily responsible, the officer's sentence should be remitted. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Review of a sentence for disobedience can only be sought by the aggrieved person; the State cannot intervene on behalf of an officer for such remission. (Para 3 )
4. An application for remission of a sentence for wilful disobedience is maintainable only by the person found guilty and not by the State. (Para 3 )
5. Application for review filed by the State is dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Who is entitled to file an application for remission of a sentence for wilful disobedience of a court order?
Only the person found guilty and aggrieved by the order can initiate an appeal or application for remission; no other person or entity, including the State, has the right to intervene on their behalf. (Para 3 )
7. Can the State seek remission of an officer's sentence on the grounds that the State is primarily responsible for implementing court orders?
No. Officers are held responsible for disobedience relating to their department. The State cannot intervene for remission, and internal management issues do not absolve the officer of personal liability unless specific accountability rules are framed. (Para 3 )
8. Does the court's power under Article 142 justify reviewing a review order based on the same grounds?
While the court possesses extensive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it may decline to exercise them if there are no circumstances warranting further review, particularly when the request is based on the same grounds as a previously rejected application. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. This Court by order dated 25-8-1995 found Mr J. Vasudevan, Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Karnataka guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Thereon, Vasudevan filed lAs Nos. 4 and 5 of 1995 praying for remission of the sentence and explaining the circumstances in which he sought the remission. It was also stated that the order in question has since been implemented. By our order dated 8-9-1995 the applications were rejected.
2. The State of Karnataka filed this IA on 11-9-1995 for reviewing the order dated 8-9-1995. It has been stated in the application that primarily the State is responsible to implement this Courts order through its Secretaries and the State has highest regard for the orders of this Court. After the c aforesaid order was passed by this Court against Vasudevan, the judgment of this Court has been implemented and, therefore, sentence of imprisonment is requested to be remitted.
3. It is now settled law that an appeal or application like the one at hand can be initiated only by the person found guilty. No other person has any right to intervene on his behalf as he alone is the person aggrieved. Since Vasudevan had filed aforesaid applications and his prayer for remission was rejected on merits, the application filed by the State seeking review of a review order is not maintainable. It is submitted on behalf of the State that in view of the extensive power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court may consider the matter and remit the sentence. We do not find any circumstance warranting further review of our review order and that too on selfsame grounds. The contention of the State is that since the action is taken at different levels, the officer is not personally liable for the violation of the order of the Court. It is their internal management and the Court or any other party would not know as to who was actually responsible for the disobedience. It would be open to the Government to frame appropriate rules fastening the responsibility and accountability for implementation of the order of the courts and to inform the courts in that behalf. Till this is done, officers like Vasudevan shall have to be held responsible for disobedience of Courts order relating to their department.
4. The application is accordingly dismissed.
For Citation: 1995(6) SC 254
