1. Challenge to conviction and fine for contempt of court arising from delayed compliance with a court order. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sri L.V. Subrahmanyam, IAS, Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature At Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 1644-1645 of 2024 @ SLP(C) Nos. 25880-25881 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 1646 of 2024 @ SLP(C) No. 34866 of 2015
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Mere delay in complying with Order, unless there is deliberate or wilful act on part of alleged contemnors would not attract provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Contempt of Court – Mere delay in complying with Order, unless there is deliberate or wilful act on part of alleged contemnors would not attract provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Subject
Contempt of Court - CIVIL CONTEMPT
Act Referred
Headnote
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sections 12 and 13 – Contempt of Court – Delay in compliance of Order of Court – Mere delay in complying with Order, unless there is deliberate or wilful act on part of alleged contemnors would not attract provisions of Contempt of Courts Act – Proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act are quasi judicial in nature and as Court comes to conclusion that act was neither deliberate or wilful, it could not have convicted appellants for Contempt of Courts Act – Impugned orders quashed and set aside – Appeals allowed. (Para 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Instant petitions challenge orders dated 14.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 by which Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, after convicting appellants herein imposed fine of Rs.500/-. High Court in the order observed that in absence of any explanation for delay, it would amount to wilful and deliberate violation of order of Court.
Findings of Court:
Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santhosh Krishnan,Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal,Adv. Mr. Girish Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham,Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary,Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam,Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool,Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jajan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar,Adv. B. Renuka Devi,Adv. Ms. Medha Singh,Adv. Mr. Puppala Santhosh Kumar,Adv. Ms. Shireesh Tyagi,Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santhosh Krishnan,Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal,Adv. Mr. Girish Chowdhary,Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham,Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary,Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam,Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool,Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jajan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar,Adv. B. Renuka Devi,Adv. Ms. Medha Singh,Adv. Mr. Puppala Santhosh Kumar,Adv. Ms. Shireesh Tyagi,Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether delay in complying with a court order, in the absence of an explanation, constitutes wilful and deliberate violation attracting contempt. (Para 4 )
3. Mere delay in compliance does not attract contempt unless the act is deliberate or wilful, given the quasi-judicial nature of such proceedings. (Para 5 )
4. Delay in complying with a court order does not attract the Contempt of Courts Act unless there is a deliberate or wilful act. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed and the impugned orders of conviction and fine quashed and set aside. (Para 6 )
6. Does mere delay in complying with a court order constitute contempt of court?
No, mere delay in complying with a court order does not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act unless there is a deliberate or wilful act on the part of the alleged contemnors. (Para 5 )
7. What is the legal nature of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act?
Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-judicial in nature. (Para 5 )
8. Can a person be convicted for contempt if the act was neither deliberate nor wilful?
No, if the court concludes that the act was neither deliberate nor wilful, the party cannot be convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These petitions challenge orders dated 14.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 by which the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after convicting the appellants herein imposed a fine of Rs.500/-.
3. A perusal of the order itself would reveal that the High Court has come to a conclusion that though the order of which contempt was alleged was complied with but there was a delay in compliance of the same.
4. The High Court in the order observed that in the absence of any explanation for the delay, it would amount to wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court.
5. We are of the view that mere delay in complying with the order, unless there is a deliberate or wilful act on the part of the alleged contemnors would not attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi judicial in nature and therefore as the Court comes to a conclusion that the act was neither deliberate or wilful, it could not have convicted the appellants for Contempt of Courts Act.
6. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
