Back
Pendency of SLP No Bar to : Issues Notice to Ex-DGP
In a robust reaffirmation of the sanctity of court orders, the has issued contempt notice to former Director General of Police (DGP) Yogesh Bahadur Khurania for of a , holding that neither the pendency of a nor the retirement of the can stall .
Case Background: The Dispute Over Suppressed Criminal Antecedents
The contempt petition arose from a long-running legal battle involving Sagarika Parida, a female Sub-Inspector of Police in Odisha. In , Parida was discharged from service under on the grounds that she had suppressed the fact that three criminal cases were registered against her when filling her Verification Roll in August 2017. She challenged the discharge before the High Court, which initially allowed her writ petition (W.P(C) No.32287 of 2020) on , directing her reinstatement with all consequential benefits and directing that the period of discharge be treated as "on duty."
The filed a writ appeal (W.A. No.357 of 2026) against that order. On , the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's decision, observing that Parida had been acquitted in all cases and that the department's own inquiry had found she was not aware of the pending cases at the time of her application. Instead of complying, the State filed an SLP before the on , even as the contempt petition for non-compliance was pending.
Court Refuses to Halt
When the matter came up before Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra on , the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) placed an instruction from the stating that an SLP had been filed and praying that the be "lied over" till its finalisation. The court sharply rejected this request, citing the 's decision in
Asit Kumar Das v. J. Panda
(2020) 20 SCC 400, which held that
"the filing of an appeal does not result in the assailed order becoming inoperative and unworthy of being complied with."
The court further noted that no had been granted by the Apex Court, and therefore, the pendency of the SLP was no bar to proceeding with the contempt case.
Retirement No Shield Against Contempt
Setting up another defence, the AGA argued that since the sole , DGP Y.B. Khurania, had superannuated on , the contempt petition should be dropped for want of the new incumbent being impleaded. The court dismissed this argument by relying on Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad (2026), which held that apart from the , persons responsible for implementing the court's order—even if not originally parties—are liable for contempt.
Justice Mishra observed that the
had "tactfully" misled the court. Instead of clearly stating the State's intention to file an SLP, the
filed an affidavit on
seeking two months' time for compliance, merely stating the matter was under
"active consideration of the
."
The court noted:
"In view of the undertakings given by the learned State Counsel from time to time on behalf of the , as well as misleading affidavits filed by him, this Court is of view that it is a clear case of willful flouting of the order passed by this Court, deserving action in terms of provisions enshrined under , even if Mr. Y.B. Khurania, the Ex-D.G. of Police, who is the sole in the present proceeding, has superannuated on 16.08.2026."
Decision and Directions
The court issued a notice to the former DGP, Yogesh Bahadur Khurania, to why he should not be tried and punished under for of the . The IG of Police (Personnel) was directed to serve the notice and report compliance within seven days.
At the same time, the court did not let the State off the hook. The in-charge DGP was directed to ensure compliance with the within four weeks. The court warned that if the order is not complied with by the next hearing on , the in-charge DGP and the IG (Personnel) shall remain personally present in court.
The case has been listed for for further proceedings.
