IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Those who have propensity of dis-regarding the Court’s orders because of their money power, social status or posts held, exemplary sentences are called for in respect of such contemnors disobeying the Supreme Court orders.
2. Proceedings for contempt are essentially personal and punitive but it is open to the Court to make a finding of contempt against an official of the Government or a Minister.
3. Apology is an act of contrition. In Contempt of Court cases, unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act—Sections 2 and 12—Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha Region Saurashtra and Kutch Area) Rules, 1960—Rule 23(1)(ii)—Bombay Forest Rules, 1942—Rule 88—Disobedience of orders of Supreme Court—Two contemnors being the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Contemnor 2 being the Minister, Incharge of Department of Forest at the relevant point of time—The Supreme Court by order dated 4-3-1997 had directed closure of all unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries—Further by order dated 30-10-2002, it was directed that no State Government would permit the opening of any saw mill, veneer and plywood industry without the prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee—State of Maharashtra sought permission to permit reopening of saw mills/veneer and plywood industries dependent on imported timber—Permission declined by the Supreme Court by order dated 14-7-2003—On enquiries made by CEC six mills in question were actually closed — However, by orders dated 7-4-2004 and 29-5-2004, State of Maharashtra granted permission to these six units to operate in the State—Such permissions were granted on basis of decisions taken by contemnors 1 and 2 deliberately and consciously—Contemnors have tendered unconditional apology—Whether contemnors deserve punishment—(Yes)—Exemplary sentences are called for in respect of both the contemnors.
       Held : The explanations of the contemnors are clearly unacceptable. Mens rea is writ large. The inevitable conclusion is that both the contemnors 1 and 2 deliberately flouted the orders of this Court in a brazen manner. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was no mens rea involved. The fact situation clearly shows to the contrary.(Paras 28 & 29)
       Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.(Paras 31 & 32)
       Proceedings for contempt are essentially personal and punitive. This does not mean that it is not open to the Court, as a matter of law to make a finding of contempt against any official of the Government say Home Secretary or a Minister.(Para 33)
       While contempt proceedings usually have these characteristics and contempt proceedings against a Government department or a minister in an official capacity would not be either personal or punitive (it would clearly not be appropriate to fine or sequest the assets of the Crown or a Government department or an officer of the Crown acting in his official capacity), this does not mean that a finding of contempt against a Government department or minister would be pointless. The very fact of making such a finding would vindicate the requirements of justice. In addition an order for costs could be made to underline the significance of a contempt. A purpose of the court’s powers to make findings of contempt is to ensure the orders of the court are obeyed. This jurisdiction is required to be co-extensive with the courts’ jurisdiction to make the orders which need the protection which the jurisdiction to make findings of contempt provides. In civil proceedings the court can now make orders (other than injunctions or for specific performance) against authorized Government departments or the Attorney General. On applications for judicial review orders can be made against ministers. In consequence such orders must be taken not to offend the theory that the Crown can supposedly do no wrong. Equally, if such orders are made and not obeyed, the body against whom the orders were made can be found guilty of contempt without offending that theory, which could be the only justifiable impediment against making a finding of contempt. (See M v. Home Office (1993 (3) ALL ER 537).(Para 34)
       This is a case where not only right from the beginning attempt has been made to overreach the orders of this Court but also to draw red-herrings. Still worse is the accepted position of inserting a note in the official file with oblique motives. That makes the situation worse. In this case the contemnors deserve severe punishment. This will set an example for those who have propensity of dis-regarding the court’s orders because of their money power, social status or posts held. Exemplary sentences are called for in respect of both the contemnors. Custodial sentence of one month simple imprisonment in each case would meet the ends of justice.(Para 35)

Judgement Key Points

The court held that both the contemnors, being high-ranking officials, deliberately and brazenly disobeyed the court’s clear and binding orders, which mandated the closure of all unlicensed veneer and plywood industries and required prior permission from the Central Empowered Committee before any industry could be permitted to operate (!) (!) .

The evidence demonstrated that the officials were fully aware of the court’s directives but chose to grant permissions to certain units, thereby intentionally flouting the orders. Their actions were not accidental or due to oversight but were carried out with a guilty mind or mens rea, with the purpose of favoring specific industry units and evading enforcement (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court found that the officials manipulated official records by interpolating notes and inserting false entries, which were aimed at justifying their actions and concealing their disobedience. Such record manipulations were deliberate acts of misconduct, intended to mislead the court and undermine the authority of the judiciary (!) (!) (!) .

The officials claimed to have acted in good faith, relying on advice from high-level bureaucrats and committees. However, the court rejected these explanations as false and unconvincing, noting that internal records and notes clearly indicated that the officials were aware of the orders and intentionally ignored them. Their claims of bona fide belief were found to be a cover for their conscious disobedience (!) (!) .

The court emphasized that such acts constitute willful disobedience of judicial orders and a breach of the rule of law, which is fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society. Their conduct has disrespected judicial authority and obstructed the administration of justice, thereby undermining the dignity of the judiciary (!) (!) .

Given the gravity of their misconduct, the court concluded that severe punitive action was warranted. Despite the officials’ unconditional apologies, the court underscored that their acts posed a serious threat to the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary. Therefore, it imposed custodial sentences of one month each on both contemnors to serve as a deterrent and to uphold the integrity of the judicial system (!) .

In sum, the court found that the contemnors’ actions were deliberate, motivated by an intent to disobey court orders, and involved manipulation of official records, which collectively justified the imposition of severe punishment to reinforce the authority of the judiciary and deter future contemptuous conduct.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.—The “King is under no man, but under God and the law” - was the reply of the Chief Justice of England, Sir Edward Coke when James-I once declared “Then I am to be under the law. It is treason to affirm it” - so wrote Henry Bracton who was a Judge of the King’s Bench.

2. The words of Bracton in his treatise in Latin “quod Rex non debat esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et Lege” (That the King should not be under man, but under God and the law) were quoted time and time again when the Stuart Kings claimed to rule by divine right. We would like to quote and requote those words of Sir Edward Coke even at the threshold.

3. In our democratic polity under the Constitution based on the concept of ‘Rule of law’ which we have adopted and given to ourselves and which serves as an aorta in the anatomy of our democratic system. THE LAW IS SUPREME.

4. Everyone whether individually or collectively is unquestionably under the supremacy of law. Whoever he may be, however, high he is, he is under the law. No matter how powerful he is said how rich he may be.

5. Disobedience of this Court’s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very corner stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that Court’s orders are to be followed and complied with.

6. The case at hand involves two contemnors. Shri Ashok Khot (hereinafter described as ‘contemnor No. 1’) was the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Maharashtra and Shri Swarup Singh Naik (hereinafter described as ‘contemnor No. 2’) was the Minister, Incharge of Department of Forest at the relevant point of time.

7. On the basis of submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae, proceedings were initiated against them. It was highlighted by learned Amicus Curiae that the respondents have acted in brazen defiance of the orders of this Court and their conduct constitutes the contempt by way of (a) wilful disobedience of directions issued by this Court, (b) the manner in which contemnors have conducted themselves clearly tends to lower the authority of this Court and obstructs the administration of justice (c) as their conduct falls both under the definition of Civil contempt, as well as seeing dimensions of the matters, under criminal contempt.

8. It was pointed out by learned Amicus Curiae that this Court by order dated 4.3.1997 directed the closure of all unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries. Further by order dated 30.10.2002 it was directed that no State Government would permit the opening of any saw mill, veneer and plywood industry without the prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee (in short the ‘CEC’). The State of Maharashtra by I.A. 414 sought permission to permit the re-opening of saw mills/veneer and plywood industries inter alia dependent on imported timber; which permission was declined by this Court’s order dated 14th July, 2003. On enquiries made by CEC as well as learned Amicus Curiae the State Government stated that the orders of this Court will be complied with and six mills in question i.e. (i) M/s Oriental Veneer Products Ltd. (ii) M/s Konark Plywood Industries Ltd. (iii) M/s Great Western Plywood Industries Ltd. (iv) M/s Pagoda Woods Pvt. Ltd. (v) M/s Woodmac (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. (vi) Luckywood Products Pvt. Ltd. were actually closed.

9. But by orders dated 7th April, 2004 and 29th May, 2004 the State of Maharash