Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. The order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, violation of which has resulted in the present contempt proceedings being instituted, was passed in W.P. No. 1686 of 2009, a Writ Petition filed in public interest and a public interest litigation. The proceedings, in a public interest litigation, are of greater significance than in other cases. These are matters which come up for hearing before the Court on a grievance raised by the public at large or by public-spirited citizens. Courts are called upon to interfere, in the exercise of their extra-ordinary jurisdiction, to ensure maintenance of the rule of law, where the State and its instrumentalities fail to discharge their statutory functions or act contrary to larger public interest. These cases have an impact in rem on larger sections of society, and not in personam simpliciter. (Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India (2012) 1 SCC 273). Compliance with the orders of the Court, in such cases, is imperative.

2. Despite the order of this Court in W.P. No. 1686 of 2009 dated 03.02.2009, directing that construction be stopped forthwith, and a contempt case being filed later on 29.06.2009 for violation of the said order, construction of the subject building continued for nearly two years thereafter. None of the respondents herein dispute that the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009 has been violated. Each of them either deny being aware of the order of this Court dated 03.02.2009, or disclaim knowledge of construction having continued after 03.02.2009 till it was completed in March, 2011, and the building inaugurated on 11.05.2011.

I. CONTEMPT OF COURT: ITS SCOPE:

3. Disobedience of orders of the Court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. If the judiciary is to perform its duties, function effectively, and remain true to the spirit with which they are entrusted with certain sacred duties, the dignity and authority of the Court should be respected and protected. (Maninderjit Singh Bitta (2012) 1 SCC 273; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot (2006) 5 SCC 1). Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression contempt of court may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. If orders of the Court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, but the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries (1980) 3 SCC 311; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu (2003) 1 SCC 644).

4. Contempt of Court, an unfortunate and misleading phrase, suggests that it exists to protect the dignity of the judges. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The power exists to ensure that justice shall be done. The public at large, no less the individual litigant, have an interest, and a very real interest, in justice being effectively administered. Unless it is so administered the rights, and indeed the liberty, of the individual would perish. (Jennison v. Baker 1972 (1) All.E.R 997). The Contempt of Courts Act secures confidence of the people in the administration of justice. If an order, passed by a competent court, is clear and unambiguous, disobedience or breach of such an order would amount to contempt of court. There can be no laxity, as otherwise orders of court would be the subject of mockery. (Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh 2002 (4) SCC 21; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai (2008) 14 SCC 561). Every one, howsoever high he may