‘Slap upon face of judiciary’: Why high court invoked Mahatma Gandhi while finding UP official guilty of contempt

Mahatma Gandhi’s words invoked

The dictum of Mahatma Gandhi, as expressed in his seminal autobiographical work ‘My Experiments with Truth’ which states that “no one can insult you without your permission,” bears profound relevance even within the realm of contempt jurisdiction.

An order passed by a constitutional court, so long as it remains operative and unvacated, carries binding force and unquestionable sanctity.

If such an order is openly disobeyed and yet the court abstains from enforcing compliance or initiating contempt action merely because an application for recall, modification, or vacation of the interim order is pending consideration, the resulting erosion of judicial authority cannot be attributed solely to the contemnor.

What was the dispute?

• The matter stems from a writ petition filed by Radhey Shyam Yadav, a teacher, in 2017.
• During the pendency of that case, the high court had passed an interim order on April 18, 2022, directing that the petitioner be paid his current salary.
• But according to the petitioner, the order remained unimplemented for years, forcing him to initiate contempt proceedings against the authorities.
• The high court noted that not only had four years passed since the interim order, but even the contempt application itself had also remained pending for the same duration.
• Pursuant to earlier directions, Prakash Singh, District Inspector of Schools, appeared personally before the court and filed an affidavit explaining the delay.
• He argued that the state had already filed a stay-vacation application in the writ petition and therefore contempt proceedings should be deferred till its final outcome.

‘Common man will lose faith’

• The court repeatedly underlined that the authority of constitutional courts is directly tied to public confidence in the legal system.
• When judicial orders are openly violated without consequence, the common citizen begins to lose faith in the “efficacy of law itself”, the judge observed.
• The court further warned that allowing orders to remain unenforced for years would symbolically amount to placing “a slap upon the face of the judiciary.”
• It said constitutional courts cannot permit their directions to become “dead letters awaiting uncertain fate for years or decades.”
• The court warned that allowing judicial directions to remain unenforced would push the justice system towards “chaos and anarchy” and make a “mockery” of the rule of law.
• The majesty of law does not survive merely by the passing of judicial orders but because such orders command obedience, the court said, adding that judicial orders are not “a decorative piece of paper to be admired and ignored at convenience.”

Mounting judicial burden

The judgment also contained an unusual reflection on the pressure faced by constitutional courts due to massive pendency.

In heavily burdened constitutional courts, like Allahabad High Court, where around 400, 500, 600 and sometimes more than 800 cases are listed every day before every judge, judicial proceedings may consume considerable time for disposal; sometimes years and sometime decades also, it observed.

Still, people all around may expect such overburdened judges to become ever-working super robots or super computers or superhuman beings.

If, during such pendency, parties are permitted to openly defy operative directions, the administration of justice would descend into chaos and anarchy. The law does not countenance such audacity.

State relied on SC judgments

The state cited two Supreme Court rulings to contend that contempt proceedings ought not to continue while applications seeking vacation of interim orders were pending. However, the high court distinguished those cases and said the facts before it were materially different.

Justice Shailendra noted that unlike short-term ad-interim orders involved in the cited cases, the present matter concerned an operative interim direction passed in 2022, which had never been stayed or vacated.

The court also pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that the state had seriously pursued its stay-vacation application for years. It said that a listing application was moved only after the court warned of personal appearance in the contempt case.

‘Filing application does not mean you can ignore orders’

• The high court said litigants cannot themselves decide whether court orders deserve compliance.
• A person against whom an interim order operates cannot be permitted to “arrogate unto himself the authority to decide whether he shall obey the order or not,” the judge said.
• The court said that merely filing an application for recall, modification or vacation does not “eclipse, suspend, neutralize or render dormant” an operative judicial order.
• Warning of dangerous consequences, the court said that if the pendency of applications were accepted as a defence, every contemnor would simply avoid compliance by filing repetitive pleas before courts.

Officer held guilty of contempt

After considering the submissions, the high court held that the pendency of the stay-vacation application could not justify the non-payment of salary for four years. The court ultimately found the opposite party guilty of contempt and directed that the matter be listed on July 8 for framing of charges.

The newly impleaded district inspector of schools has also been directed to remain personally present before the court. At the same time, the court said that the official could still purge the contempt by complying with the original interim order.