Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1992 Supreme(SC) 854

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray, M.N. Venkatachaliah
ACHHAN RIZVI (I), PETITIONER/APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
I.A. No. 3 in Contempt Petition No. 102 of 1992 in W.P. (C) No. 1000 of 1991 with Contempt Petition No. 97 of 1992 in W.P. (C) Nos. 977 and 972 of 1991 and 264 of 1992, decided on November 20, 1992.

Advocates:
A.K.GOHIL, A.P.MEDH, Atul Chitale, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, K.K.VENUGOPAL, M.M.KASHYAP, O.P.Sharma, RANDHIR JAIN, SUCHITRA ATUL CHITALI, U.R.Lalit, V.K.S.Chaudhary

The central legal point established is the need for the State and Union Governments to indicate their stand to ensure enforcement of earlier court orders and the request for learned counsel to assist the Court without adopting an adversarial approach.

Headnote:
Contempt - Enforcement of Court Orders - The court directed the State and Union Governments to indicate their stand in the matter to ensure enforcement of earlier court orders.
Fact of the Case:

The State Government expressed its anxiety to ensure enforcement of court orders and indicated ongoing parleys for settlement. The petitioner-complainant's counsel expressed concern over the developing situation and sought assistance from the Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Court directed the State and Union Governments to indicate their stand in the matter to ensure enforcement of earlier court orders.
Issues: Enforcement of court orders, ongoing parleys for settlement, concern over the developing situation, adversarial approach of the learned counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for the State and Union Governments to assist in making orders to ensure enforcement of earlier court orders and requested the learned counsel to shed an adversarial approach and assist the Court in a way that will not disturb social equilibrium.
Final Decision: The matter was listed for further hearing on a specified date.

ORDER

1. We have heard learned counsel on both sides on I.A. No. 5 (In Contempt Petition No. 97 of 1992 in W.P. (C) No. 977 of 1991).

2. Shri Venugopal submitted that the State Government is second to none in its anxiety to ensure the enforcement of the orders of this Court. He stated that as there are ongoing parleys amongst the various groups for settlement, any contemplation of immediate coercive action on the part of the Government might, according to him, be counter-productive. The State Government would be able to spell out its programme of action to ensure obedience by about the end of this month when it will be able to know or reasonably anticipate the possible outcome of the parleys.

3. We think it is also necessary for the Union Government to indicate its stand in the matter so that we may have its assistance in making such orders as would ensure enforcement of the earlier orders of this court. We, therefore, direct Attorney General/Solicitor General to be present in Court at 2.00 p.m. on Monday, the 23rd November, 1992.

4. Shri Gobinda Mukhoty and Shri Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant, expressed serious concern over the developing situation and sought to recollect what happened in the month of July 1992, where, according to them, adjournments were taken advantage of to present the petitioners with a fait accompli. We appreciate the concern expressed by learned counsel. At the same time, we request all the learned counsel to serve to shed an adversarial approach in the matter and assist the Court in a way which will not disturb social equilibrium.

5. List the matter on Monday, the 23rd November, 1992, at 2.00 p.m.

Court Masters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document