Officials must comply with Court orders; belated apologies in contempt proceedings may indicate insincerity.

1. The present contempt proceedings against contemner, Arun Kshetrapal, District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, arise out of his refusal to comply with this Court's order dated 1-8-1975 in a pending habeas corpus petition and as a consequence of a crash wireless message dated 6-8-1975 addressed by him to the Registrar of this Court in that connection.

2. A detenu, Vidhya Bhushan Thakur, has challenged the validity of his detention passed by the contemner under S.3(1)(a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act , 1971, in the habeas corpus petition (M. P. No. 700 of 1975) under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in which the contemner is a party as respondent No. 1. This Court vide its order dated 1-8-1975 in that petition had directed production of the detenu in Court on 8-8-1975 which was the date of hearing. But the contemner vide his crash wireless message dated 6-8-1975 addressed to the Advocate - General and a copy to the Registrar of this Court, expressed his inability to obey the order of this Court in view of the general order issued by the State Government under Sub-Sec. (2) of S.268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, excluding any person or class of persons from the operation of S.267 of the said Code. The wireless message was brought to our notice as desired by the contemner. On 8-8-1975, we ordered issue of notice to the contemner, Arun Kshetrapal, District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in exercise of the powers of this Court under Art.215 of the Constitution read with S.10 of the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 (No. 70 of 1971) and fixed 13-8-1975 as the date for the appearance of the contemner.

3. On 13-8-1975, the contemner appeared in this Court, but on a prayer being made by his counsel the hearing was adjourned for the next day i.e., 14-8-1975, as time was required for filing of a reply, which was submitted in the form of an affidavit together with some annexures. In reply, the contemner pleaded for discharge of the rule nisi on the grounds that neither he committed any disobedience of the order of this Court nor the tenor of the wireless message constituted contempt of this Court.

4. On 14-8-1975, the contemner was also present in this Court but showed no remorse. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on his behalf justified his conduct by urging that that does not amount to contempt as ultimately the detenu was produced in this Court and the wireless message was only for information. It was further contended that at the most sending of wireless message to the Registrar of this Court was a mistake and the tenor of the message does not amount to contempt. Before the case could be closed for orders, learned Counsel for the contemner prayed time for the contemner to reflect on his conduct. That prayer was allowed by granting time till after lunch break. Then, at 2.15 P.M., the contemner, who was present in person along with his counsel, tendered an unqualified apology in writing which reads as under :
"That I have full regards and respect for this Hon'ble Court. That I never intended to disobey any order of this Hon'ble Court. I never intended to disregard or show disrespect to this Hon'ble Court by any conduct on my part. That the stand taken by me was under wrong advice and I offer my unconditional and unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court.
I further submit that any aspersions, directly or impliedly cast on this Hon'ble Court during the address of the counsel was never meant and I offer my apology for