‘Even officers in services of nation have displayed audacity to disobey orders’: Bombay HC issues contempt notice to SSC Director
Passed an order on two pleas against the non-selection of candidates in the central defence forces merely due to a “minuscule difference in height of 3 and 4 millimetres”.
An order was passed last week on two pleas against the non-selection of candidates in the central defence forces merely due to a "minuscule difference in height of 3 and 4 millimetres". (Credits: Pexels)
Observing it to be a “classic case” where even officers in the services of the nation displayed audacity to disobey orders of the court, the Bombay High Court issued a contempt notice against the Director of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for wilful disobedience of its order. The court also expressed displeasure over the growing “tendency to disobey orders”, leading to hundreds of contempt pleas filed every year against state and central officials.
A bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and Hiten S Venegavkar last week passed an order on two pleas against the non-selection of candidates in the central defence forces merely due to a “minuscule difference in height of 3 and 4 millimetres”.
On April 22, the HC was informed by the Assistant Commandant, CRPF at Navi Mumbai, that as per the HC order, they were declared qualified and were held eligible in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME).
The HC then posted the hearing to April 24, seeking SSC Director’s presence.
He was asked to explain why court should not initiate contempt proceedings against him for making the petitioners approach the HC for the third time in the same case, despite the department’s appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.
“This is a classic case wherein, prima facie, we find that even officers in the services of this nation have displayed the audacity to disobey the orders of this Court. Much turns upon the discipline of such officers in respecting the Majesty of Law,” the HC noted in its April 24 order.
The bench added that the SSC director failed to appear before it and instead instructed lawyer to present local officer of the same rank from Mumbai, who was not even added as a respondent to the pleas.
Story continues below this ad
“We are appalled by the fact that the tendency to disobey the orders of the High Court is growing to such an extent that hundreds of contempt petitions are being registered each year, most of them on account of disobedience by the State Government, the Central Government, or their officers,” the HC noted.
Justice Ghuge observed “very rarely” his bench issues suo motu (on its own) contempt notices against any officer.
The HC said its April 22 order clearly indicated how the two petitioners aspiring to join the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)/Border Security Force (BSF) were “being kept at bay despite having succeeded before the High Court” and SC.
“These two petitioners are still not inducted into the training programme, which commenced more than two months ago. All other candidates are more than two months ahead in training, and these petitioners are still at the doorstep, waiting to be inducted.”
Story continues below this ad
Advocate Venkatesh A. Shastry, for the petitioners, submitted that the April 23 dossier generated by the department was “merely to create a camouflage before the court, suggesting that some action is being taken in the matter” and “only to save its skin and to create an impression of compliance with the court orders.”
Therefore, the HC issued a suo motu contempt notice against Director of SSC, and posted the matter for further hearing on April 29.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
