Israr Ahmad Khan Vs Amarnath Prasad & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered contempt proceedings arising from alleged non-compliance with its earlier order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeals No. 7023/2025 and 7024/2025. At the outset of the hearing, senior counsel representing the alleged contemnors sought permission to withdraw from the matter, which the Court allowed.
The Court heard the parties and the alleged contemnors who appeared in person pursuant to an earlier order dated 16.01.2026, which required them to be present if the earlier order had not been complied with and if an affidavit of compliance had not been filed.
Findings on Non-Compliance
An affidavit had been filed on behalf of one of the alleged contemnors explaining the reasons for non-compliance. The affidavit referred to administrative hurdles and implementation issues. It also detailed certain correspondence between the Managing Director of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation and the Government of Chhattisgarh seeking guidance regarding compliance.
The Court noted that the order dated 20.05.2025 had granted three months’ time for compliance, which expired on 20.08.2025. However, the correspondence seeking guidance from the Government was initiated only after a significant portion of the compliance period had already elapsed. The Court observed that reminders and responses between officials occurred even later, well after the deadline for compliance had expired.
On examining the record, the Court observed that the affidavit largely offered explanations rather than demonstrating compliance. It also pointed out that no miscellaneous application had been filed before the Court seeking clarification or directions regarding difficulties in implementing the order. Instead, a review petition was filed in October 2025, after the expiry of the compliance period, and even that petition remained defective as the notified defects had not been cured.
The Court held that filing a review petition did not justify non-compliance with a court order. It emphasized that the alleged contemnors were duty-bound to comply with the order first and could take further steps depending on the outcome of the review proceedings. Making compliance conditional on the outcome of a review petition was found to be unacceptable.
The Court also noted statements in the affidavit indicating that compliance could be carried out if the review petition failed, suggesting that the contemnors were capable of complying but had chosen not to do so.
Prima Facie Contempt
Based on the circumstances, the Court observed that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out. The conduct of the alleged contemnors showed failure to comply with the order within the prescribed time and reliance on explanations that the Court considered inadequate. The Court stated that charges for contempt could be framed against them.
At the same time, the Court reflected on the broader issue of its earlier liberal approach in contempt jurisprudence and remarked that incidents of such non-compliance may require reconsideration of that approach in appropriate cases.
Final Opportunity Granted
Before the Court could proceed to frame charges, the alleged contemnors requested a final opportunity of 15 days to comply fully with the order. Considering the request, the Court granted what it described as an extraordinary indulgence and adjourned the matter.
The contempt petitions were directed to be listed on 24.03.2026. The Court stated that if affidavits demonstrating complete compliance with the order dated 20.05.2025 were filed before that date, the alleged contemnors would not be required to appear personally. However, if compliance was not demonstrated, the Court would proceed to frame charges for contempt.
The Court also clarified that any person or authority forming part of the chain responsible for compliance with the order was duty-bound to cooperate. Such persons could not avoid responsibility merely because they were not parties to the original proceedings.
Substitution of Respondents
During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court’s notice that certain respondents initially named in the contempt petition were no longer holding the concerned posts. Accordingly, the Court directed substitution of the relevant officers presently holding those positions. Notices were directed to be issued to the substituted respondents.
Liability of Non-Parties for Contempt
The Court addressed the legal question of whether persons who were not parties to the original proceedings could be proceeded against for contempt. Relying on earlier decisions, particularly Sita Ram v. Balbir (2017), the Court explained that individuals who knowingly aid or assist in the breach of a court order or who interfere with the administration of justice may also be liable for contempt, even if they were not directly bound by the original order.
The Court reiterated that once a person becomes aware of a court order, deliberate non-compliance or actions that obstruct its implementation can attract contempt jurisdiction.
Scope of Contempt Proceedings
Referring to earlier decisions including Union of India v. Subedar Devassy P.V. (2006), the Court emphasized that the role of a court in contempt proceedings is limited. The Court must only determine whether its earlier order has been complied with. It cannot examine the correctness of the order or reconsider the merits of the underlying dispute.
If a party believes that a court order is incorrect, impracticable, or difficult to implement, the proper course is to approach the court through appropriate proceedings such as appeal or application for clarification. The order must otherwise be obeyed.
Concern Over Delayed Appeals
The Court also expressed concern about the growing practice of delaying compliance with court orders and subsequently filing belated appeals or petitions when contempt proceedings are initiated. It observed that such practices undermine the authority of courts and interfere with the administration of justice.
The Court stated that courts, including High Courts, should deal firmly with litigants who adopt such tactics, especially when they are government authorities or entities falling within the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Procedural Directions
The Court directed the Registry to place the pending review petition before the appropriate Bench after obtaining the necessary permission from the Chief Justice of India. A copy of the present judgment was directed to be placed along with that review petition.
Further, copies of the judgment were directed to be circulated to the Union Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training and to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territory Administrations so that they may take note of the Court’s observations regarding contempt proceedings involving government officers.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
