® SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

SCC
ONLINET
Page1 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA 273

(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 273

(BEFORE S.H. KAPADIA, C.J. AND K.S.P. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
a SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
MANINDERIJIT SINGH BITTA .. Petitioner;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .. Respondents.
b 1A No. 10 of 2010 in WP (C) No. 510 of 2005,
decided on October 13, 2011
A. Contempt of Court — Object — Generally — Rationale behind
doctrine of contempt of court is protecting dignity and authority of court —
Said protection is required more so when proceedings are before Supreme
Court — Basic structure of the Constitution — Rule of law and
¢ independence of judiciary — Effect of disobedience of court orders on rule
of law and independence of judiciary, discussed — Constitution of India —
Arts. 129, 32, 226, 136, 162, 73, 144, 215 and 368 — Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, Ss. 2(b) & (¢)
Held :
Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law
g on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a
democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the
judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the
spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts
have to be respected and protected at all costs. The proceedings before the
highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more
significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a
€ grievance raised by the public at large or public-spirited persons. The State itself
places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or
otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority. (Para 26)
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1, relied on
B. Constitution of India — Arts. 129, 32 and 136 — Punishment for
wilful disobedience — Contemnor officials punished with fine of Rs 2000
f each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days —
Exemplary costs of Rs 50,000 imposed on State payable to Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee and directed to be recovered from salaries of
erring officers/officials and such recovery proceedings directed to be
concluded within six months — Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S. 2(b)
(Paras 32 to 34 and 1 to 4 and 13 to 15)
g C. Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Wilful disobedience/
contumacious conduct — Passive/dormant/apathetic attitude of government
officers in not implementing valid public scheme in public interest in spite of
repeated directions of Supreme Court — Effect, punishment and further
directions for compliance — State of Haryana not taking any steps for about
7 years in spite of repeated directions of Supreme Court regarding
h implementation of Scheme relating to new high security registration plates
(HSRP) — Thereafter, in spite of directions, steps taken being insincere and
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page2 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

274 SUPREME COURT CASES (2012) 1 SCC

there being inaction for months in opening financial bids to award contract
pursuant to said Scheme — There being no explanation for delay and only
vague averments and lame excuses — Officer(s) concerned, held, are guilty
of wilful disobedience/non-compliance with orders of Supreme Court,
particularly orders dated 30-11-2004, 7-4-2011 and 30-8-2011 — They
caused prejudice to public and undermined dignity of Supreme Court —
Officer(s) concerned, therefore, punished with fine of Rs 2000 each and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days — Exemplary costs
of Rs 50,000 imposed on State payable to Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee and directed to be recovered from salaries of erring
officers/officials and such recovery proceedings directed to be concluded
within six months — Government and respondent contemnors directed to
positively comply with orders and implement Scheme within eight weeks —
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 41(6) — Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
R. 50 (Paras 32 to 34 and 1 to 4 and 13 to 15)
Held :
It was expected of the officers-in-charge and particularly the Secretary,
Transport and the Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the State of
Haryana to at least carefully read the orders of the Supreme Court and ensure
their implementation in their correct perspective. Timely action on their part
would have saved time of the Court as well as public money. (Para 32)
Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 364; Assn. of Registration
Plates v. Union of India, (2005) 1 SCC 679; Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India,
(2008) 7 SCC 328; Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 315;
Maninderijit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 273, referred to
Having found them guilty under the provisions of the 1971 Act and under
Article 129 of the Constitution of India, the said officers are punished as under.
They are punished to pay a fine of Rs 2000 each and in default, they shall be
liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Exemplary
costs of Rs 50,000 are imposed on the State of Haryana, which amount, at the
first instance, shall be paid by the State but would be recovered from the salaries
of the erring officers/officials of the State in accordance with law and such
recovery proceedings be concluded within six months. The costs would be
payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. It is also directed that
the State Government and the respondent contemnors herein shall now positively
comply with the orders and implement the Scheme within eight weeks from
today. [Paras 34(i) to (iii)]
D. Contempt of Court — Nature and Scope — Broadly — Nature and
Scope of contempt proceedings — Invocation of contempt jurisdiction —
Factors, considerations and principles, restated and discussed by
distinguishing: (a) civil and criminal contempt, and (b) Indian and English
law — Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Ss. 2(b) and (¢) (Paras 16 to 19)
J.D. Kapoor’s Law of Contempt of Court, 2nd Edn., 2010, referred to
E. Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Wilful disobedience/
contumacious conduct — Passive/dormant/apathetic disobedience, whether
contemptuous — Held, where contemnor neither obeys orders nor makes
appropriate prayers for extension of time to obey orders, only the possible
inference in law is that such party is disobeying court orders —
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page3 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

MANINDERIJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA 275

Passive/dormant disobedience or active disobedience are both contemptuous

acts — Defences of lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of
a motivation in not obeying court directions/orders, held, can hardly be raised
as a defence even if alleged contemnors are high officials — Defences —
Administrative inaction, Icthargy, ignorance and absence of motivation —
Not maintainable defences (Paras 20 to 29)
F. Contempt of Court — Nature and Scope — Contempt by
Government or its instrumentality — If orders of court are not carried out
b by Government or its instrumentality, contempt jurisdiction can be invoked
to punish contemnor (or government officers responsible) so that future
orders are complied with — Application of said principle in USA and
Australia pointed out — Constitution of India, Arts. 162, 73, 129 and 215
(Paras 20 to 29)
Held :
c Even in cases where no positive/active role is directly attributable to a
person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation
of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt. It
is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a passive/negative or an
active/positive behaviour of a contemnor but at best, it can be a relevant
consideration for imposition of punishment, wherever the contemnor is found
guilty of contempt of court. (Paras 22 and 23)
It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by
positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant
conduct leads to the same result. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence
of motivation can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt.
Inaction or even dormant behaviour by the officers in the highest echelons in the
hierarchy of the Government in complying with the directions/orders of the
e Court certainly amounts to disobedience. Whenever there are obstructions or
difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of
the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for
extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither
obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate
prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in
f law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is
intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the
court’s orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the
authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.
(Paras 26, 29 and 20)
ET Sunup v. CAN.S.S. Employees Assn., (2004) 8 SCC 683; M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India. (2001) 5 SCC 309; Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police, 1993 Supp (2) SCC
g 501 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 696: Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4 SCC 21. followed
Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due
dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it.
The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per
orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be
adhered to. (Para 20)
h Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, (1995) 2 SCC 584, referred to
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page4 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

276 SUPREME COURT CASES (2012) 1 SCC

It is where the State and its instrumentalities fail to discharge their statutory
functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that the courts are
called upon to interfere in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure
maintenance of the rule of law. These are the cases which have impact in rem or
on larger section of the society and not in personam simpliciter. Courts are called
upon to exercise jurisdiction with twin objects in mind. Firstly, to punish the
persons who have disobeyed or not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their
past conduct. Secondly, to pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the
contempt jurisdiction as a tool for compliance with its orders in future. This
principle has been applied in the United States and Australia as well. For
execution of the orders of the court even committal for an indefinite term has
been accepted under Australian law. (Paras 27 and 28)
Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v. Mudginberri Station (Pty) Lid., (1986) 161
CLR 98 (Aust); Nevirt, In re, 117 F 448 (1902), relied on
SS-D/48826/CVRL
Chronological list of cases cited on page(s)
1. (2011) 14 SCC 273, Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India 278d, 278f-.
280a-b, 2843
2. (2011) 11 SCC 315, Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India 278a, 278¢, 279f-¢,
279h, 284g
. (2008) 7 SCC 328, Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India 277d-e
4. (2006) 5 SCC 1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot 282g-h
5. (2005) 1 SCC 679, Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India 277b-c, 279,
284¢, 279¢
6. (2004) 8 SCC 683, E.T. Sunup v. C.AN.S.S. Employees Assn. 282d
7. (2004) 5 SCC 364, Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India 277b
8. (2002) 4 SCC 21. Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh 283fg¢
9. (2001) 5 SCC 309. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 282¢
10. (1995) 2 SCC 584, Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re 281¢
11. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 501 ; 1993 SCC (Cri) 696, Maniyeri Madhavan v.
Inspector of Police 283f-g
12. (1986) 161 CLR 98 (Aust), Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union
v. Mudginberri Station (Pty) Ltd. 283c-d
13. 117 F 448 (1902), Nevint, In re 283d-e
ORDER
1. The Government of India, on 28-3-2001, issued a Notification under
the provisions of Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
“the Act™) read with Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short
“the Rules”) for implementation of the provisions of the Act. This
notification sought to introduce a new scheme regulating issuance and
fixation of high security number plates.
2. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 109 of the Act, the Central
Government issued an Order dated 22-8-2001 which dealt with various facets
of manufacture, supply and fixation of new high security registration plates
(HSRP). The Central Government also issued a Notification dated
16-10-2001 for further implementation of the said Order and the HSRP
Scheme. Various States had invited tenders in order to implement this
Scheme.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page5 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print’ TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA 277

3. A writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2003 was filed in this
Court challenging the Central Government’s power to issue such notification
as well as the terms and conditions of the tender process. In addition to the
above writ petition before this Court, various other writ petitions were filed
in different High Courts raising the same challenge. These writ petitions
came to be transferred to this Court.
4. All the transferred cases along with Writ Petition (C) No. 41 of 2003
were referred to a larger Bench of three Judges of this Court by the order of
reference dated 26-5-2004 in Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India’,
as there was a difference of opinion between the learned members of the
Bench dealing with the case. The three-Judge Bench finally disposed of the
writ petitions vide its order dated 30-11-2004 in Assn. of Registration Plates
v. Union of India®. While dismissing the writ petition and the connected
matters, the Bench rejected the challenge made to the provisions of the Rules,
statutory order issued by the Central Government and the tender conditions
and also issued certain directions for appropriate implementation of the
Scheme.
5. The matter did not rest there. Different States did not comply with the
Rules, Scheme and/or statutory order which resulted in filing of the present
writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 510 of 2005. This writ petition also
came to be disposed of by a three-Judge Bench of this Court vide its
judgment titled as Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India®. Tt will be
appropriate to refer to the operative part of the said judgment: (SCC
pp- 332-33, paras 6 & 9)
“6. Grievance of the petitioner and the intervener i.e. All-India Motor
Vehicles Security Association is that subsequent to the judgment the
scheme of HSRP is yet not implemented in any State except the State of
Meghalaya and other States are still repeating the processing of the
tender. The prayer therefore is that the purpose of introducing the
Scheme should be fulfilled in letter and spirit. The objective being public
safety and security there should not be any lethargy. It is pointed out that
most of the States floated the tenders and thereafter without any reason
the process has been slowed down. ...
* * *

9. Needless to say the Scheme appears to have been introduced

keeping in view the public safety and security of the citizens. Let
necessary decisions be taken, if not already taken, within a period of six
months from today. While taking the decision the aspects highlighted by
this Court in the earlier decision needless to say shall be kept in view.”
6. Despite the above judgment of this Court, most of the States have
failed to implement the Scheme and the directions contained in the
judgments of this Court. The matter remained pending before this Court for a

1 (2004) 5 SCC 364

2 (2005) 1 SCC 679
3 (2008) 7 SCC 328
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page6 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print’ TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

278 SUPREME COURT CASES (2012) 1 SCC

considerable time and various orders passed by this Court directing
implementation of the Scheme, were not complied with. On 7-4-20114, by a
detailed order, we had taken note of the intervening events and the fact that a
large number of the States had not even implemented the Scheme and the
directions contained in the judgments of this Court. Before invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings
against the authorities concerned of the respective defaulting States, this
Court considered it necessary to require only presence of officers in Court
and provided them with another opportunity to ensure compliance with the
directions issued by this Court.
7. Despite assurance of an effective implementation of the Court’s orders,
nothing substantial was done within the time of six weeks granted by this
Court vide its order dated 7-4-2011%. Certain interim applications (IAs) were
filed by some of the States for extension of time and in view of the assurance
given in Court, this Court had also dispensed with the personal appearance of
the senior officers of those State Governments. However, with some regret,
we noticed that still a few States had not complied with the directions of this
Court and the casual attitude of the State Government of these States was
obvious from their very conduct, inside and outside the court. This attitude
compelled us to pass a very detailed order on 30-8-2011% classifying the
States into different categories.
8. The first category of the States had taken steps and even awarded the
contract for supplying “high security registration plates” (HSRP). The second
category was of the States/UTs which had not followed the correct procedure
for selection and had approved all private vendors with “type approval
certificate” (TAC) from the Central Government to affix the “HSRP” at their
own premises or at the Office of the RTO. The third category was of the
defaulting States which had filed affidavits, assuring the Court of taking steps
and finalising the tender allotment within the specified dates. On the basis of
the affidavits filed by them, they were granted further time and were required
to file affidavits of compliance.
9. The last category was of the States which had been persisting with the
default and had not taken any effective steps to comply with the directions of
this Court. Thus, vide order dated 30-8-2011° we had passed the following
directions in relation to this category: (Maninderjit Singh case>, SCC para 12)
“I2. From the record before us, it is clear that there is apparent and
intentional default on the part of the officers concerned of these
defaulting States. Consequently, we issue notice to show cause why
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated, if
found guilty, why they be not punished in accordance with law and why
exemplary costs, personally recoverable from the erring officers/officials,
be not imposed. Notice shall be issued to:

4 Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 315

5 Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 273
 ® SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
SCC
ONLINET
Page7 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA 279

(a) Secretary (Transport) of the defaulting States.

(b) Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the respective
States.”
10. The State of Haryana is one such State which has hardly taken any
step to implement the Scheme. For their intentional violation of the Court’s
order, we were compelled to issue notice as to why proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 (for short “the 1971 Act”) as well as costs,
exemplary or otherwise, be not imposed upon the States or its officers,
responsible for such inordinate delay in complying with the orders of the
Court.
11. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Haryana, it was stated
that a notice for inviting tender was published on 29-10-2002 which was
challenged before the Court and finally, this Court vide its order dated
30-11-20042, had dismissed the petition raising challenge to the tender
process. Thereafter, draft “Request for Proposals” was prepared only on
28-4-2011 and the notice inviting tender was published on 12-5-2011. Pre-bid
meeting was held and amendments to the terms of the tender were made on
30-6-2011. The constituted committee held a meeting thereafter and apprised
the concerned of the prequalification bids. On 30-8-2011, the bids were
received and evaluated. The technical bids were opened on 5-9-2011 and
financial bids were to be opened thereafter in the month of September 2011
itself which, unfortunately, have not been opened till date and the tender has
not been awarded to any bidder.
12. Let us now examine the conduct of the State and its officers,
responsible for not carrying out the directions of this Court. It is undisputable
from the record produced before us that initially the steps were taken by the
State of Haryana in the year 2002 which could not be finalised because of the
Court’s intervention and the said challenge was finally dismissed and all
controversies came to an end by the order of this Court dated 30-11-20042.
13. Admittedly, from the year 2004 till 2011, for a long period of seven
years, no steps were taken by the State of Haryana in compliance with the
directions of this Court and the statutory scheme under the provisions of Rule
50 of the Rules. It was only with the pronouncement of the order dated 7-4-
20114 by this Court that the State of Haryana appears to have woken up from
slumber and made a feeble attempt, which completely lacked both will and
sincerity, to comply with the orders of this Court. The authorities were
expected to comply with the directions and implement the Scheme effectively
and expeditiously. Despite the lapse of more than 5 months, tenders have still
not been awarded to any party.
14. It is evident from the record that the matters of public safety and
urgent nature were taken as routine files of the Department. This conduct of
the Department and its officers demonstrates a complete callous attitude on
their part, as they failed to take note of the mandatory and self-contained
directions of this Court in the order dated 7-4-20114. Besides noticing that
such functioning of the departments was reprehensible, this Court while
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page8 Wednesday, August 07,2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print’ TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

280 SUPREME COURT CASES (2012) 1 SCC

recording a note of caution, required the authorities to comply with such
orders in future. Despite specific orders, it has taken months for the State
hierarchy to open the financial bids and award the contract.
15. In the order dated 30-8-20115, the State of Haryana was named
amongst the States which had taken no action or had merely initiated the
process without any effective steps and/or final results. They were issued
notice because the conduct of these States reflected callousness and lack of
will to obey the orders of this Court. Their attitude was found to be one of
disobedience and the situation has hardly changed, not for the better in any
case. Not taking any steps, whatsoever, to implement the Scheme and the
orders of this Court for years together and now inaction for months together
in not opening the financial bids and awarding the contract, is a glaring and
flagrant violation of the orders of this Court by the State and its responsible
officers.
16. Now, we would examine certain principles of law which would
normally guide the exercise of judicial discretion in the realm of contempt
jurisdiction. “Contempt” is an extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts.
Normally, the courts are reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings under the
provisions of the 1971 Act. This jurisdiction, at least suo motu, is invoked by
the courts sparingly and in compelling circumstances, as it is one of the
foremost duty of the courts to ensure compliance with its orders. The law
relating to contempt is primarily dissected into two main heads of jurisdiction
under the Indian law: (@) criminal contempt, and () civil contempt. It is now
well-settled and explained principle under the Indian contempt jurisdiction
that features, ingredients, procedure, attendant circumstances of the case and
the quantum of punishment are the relevant and deciphering factors.
17. Section 12 of the 1971 Act deals with the contempt of court and its
punishment while Section 15 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt.
Civil contempt would be wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court or
wilful disobedience of any judgment or order of the court, while criminal
contempt would deal with the cases where by words, spoken or written, signs
or any matter or doing of any act which scandalises, prejudices or interferes,
obstructs or even tends to obstruct the due course of any judicial proceedings,
any court and the administration of justice in any other manner. Under the
English law, the distinction between criminal and civil contempt is stated to
be very little and that too of academic significance. However, under both the
English and Indian law these are proceedings sui generis.
18. While referring to Justice J.D. Kapoor’s Law of Contempt of Court,
2nd Edn., 2010 which mentioned the Phillimore Committee Report—Report
of the Committee on Contempt of Court, of which importantly the following
passage can be noticed:
“4. In England and Wales most forms of contempt have been
regarded as of criminal character, and as such, are called ‘criminal
contempts’. In Scotland contempt of court is not a crime nor is a
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page9 Wednesday, August 07, 2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA 281

distinction between ‘criminal’ and ‘civil’ contempts recognised. Scots

law regards contempt of court as a chapter of a law sui generis. This
difference of approach is of little more than academic significance in
modern practice, but the Scottish explain certain peculiar elements in its
operation and procedure. What is of particular importance is that it is a
branch of the law in which breaches are investigated by a special and
summary procedure and where, once established, they may be severely
punished.”
19. Under the Indian law the conduct of the parties, the act of
disobedience and the attendant circumstances are relevant to consider
whether a case would fall under civil contempt or criminal contempt. For
example, disobedience of an order of a court simpliciter would be civil
contempt but when it is coupled with conduct of the parties which is
contemptuous, prejudicial and is in flagrant violation of the law of the land, it
may be treated as a criminal contempt. Even under the English law, the
courts have the power to enforce its judgment and orders against the
recalcitrant parties.
20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily
concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and
wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt.
Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey
the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is
required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the
institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The
departments or instrumentalitics of the State must act expeditiously as per
orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be
adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance
with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government
department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time
or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of
the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension
of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such
party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not
carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court’s orders
would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority
of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.
21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, this Court held that: (SCC p. 617,
para 39)
“39. ... judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz. to
oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and
the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the
fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of
adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to

6 (1995) 2 SCC 584

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Wednesday, August 07, 2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

282 SUPREME COURT CASES (2012) 1 SCC

peaceful and orderly development of the society. ... dignity and authority
of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs.”
22. Another very important aspect even of the civil contempt is, “what is
the attribution of the contemnor?” There may be cases of disobedience where
the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience of the
orders of the court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the court openly,
intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some other
cases of civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of a
dormant or passive behaviour on the part of the contemnor. Such would be
the case where the contemnor does not take steps and just remains unmoved
by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no positive/active
role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude
of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the court and may render
him liable for an action of contempt.
23. It is not the offence of contempt which gets altered by a passive/
negative or an active/positive behaviour of a contemnor but at best, it can be a
relevant consideration for imposition of punishment, wherever the contemnor
is found guilty of contempt of court.
24. With reference to government officers, this Court in E.7. Sunup v.
C.A.N.S.S. Employees Assn.” took the view that it has become a tendency
with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders
of the court by taking recourse to one justification or the other even if ex
facie they are unsustainable. The tendency of undermining the court orders
cannot be countenanced.
25. Deprecating the practice of undue delay in compliance with the
orders of the Court, this Court again in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India®
observed: (SCC p. 311, paras 8-9)
“... clear lapse on the part of NCT and Municipal Corporation. Even
if there was no deliberate or wilful disregard for the court orders, there
has clearly been a lackadaisical attitude and approach towards them.
Though no further action in this matter need be taken for now, but such
lethargic attitude if continues may soon become contumacious.”
26. It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders
by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant
conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes
at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule
of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of
the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions
effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly
entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and
protected at all costs (refer T'N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case®, SCC p. 6,
para 5). The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public

7 (2004) 8 SCC 683

8 (2001) 5 SCC 309
9 T.N. Godavarman Thirumuipad (102) v. Ashok Khot, (2006) 5 SCC 1
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Wednesday, August 07, 2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

MANINDERIJIT SINGH BITTA v. UNION OF INDIA 283

interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which
come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at
a large or public-spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the
Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the
domain of the executive authority.
27. Tt is where the State and its instrumentalities have failed to discharge
its statutory functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that
the courts are called upon to interfere in exercise of their extraordinary
b jurisdiction to ensure maintenance of the rule of law. These are the cases
which have impact in rem or on larger section of the society and not in
personam simpliciter. Courts are called upon to exercise jurisdiction with
twin objects in mind. Firstly, to punish the persons who have disobeyed or
not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their past conduct. Secondly, to
pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the contempt jurisdiction
¢ as a tool for compliance with its orders in future. This principle has been
applied in the United States and Australia as well.
28. For execution of the orders of the court even committal for an
indefinite term has been accepted under Australian law [Australasian Meat
Industry Employees’ Union v. Mudginberri Station (Pty) Ltd.'9] and
American law, though this is no longer permissible under English law. While
d referring to detention of a person for a long period to ensure execution of the
orders in Nevitt, In rell, F at p. 461, Sanborn, J. observed that the person
subjected to such a term “carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket™.
29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can
hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay
in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial
criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution
of the court’s orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even
dormant behaviour by the officers in the highest echelons in the hierarchy of
the Government in complying with the directions/orders of this Court
certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying
with the orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations
within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held
to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court.
Reference in this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of
Police’? and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh'3. Even a lackadaisical
attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be
a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the
g purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest
and within stipulated period.

10 (1986) 161 CLR 98 (Aust)

h 11 117 F 448 (1902)
12 1993 Supp (2) SCC 501 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1993 SC 356
13 (2002) 4 SCC 21
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Wednesday, August 07, 2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

284 SUPREME COURT CASES (2012) 1 SCC

30. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that
for years together the State of Haryana has failed to comply with the
directions of this Court and implement the Scheme. It has not only caused
prejudice to the public at large but has even undermined the dignity of this
Court. The attitude of the State of Haryana and the respective officers has
been lackadaisical and of wilful disregard. Despite repeated orders they have
failed to take effective steps and whatever steps were taken the same are not
in conformity with law. The repeated orders of this Court have failed to bring
any results from the recalcitrant State. The repeated opportunities and
extension of time did not help in expeditious progress in the matter. On the
contrary, there is apparent disobedience of the orders of this Court and no
compliance with the orders of this Court, by their completely passive and
dormant behaviour. This behaviour, besides causing serious problems in the
effective implementation of the statutory scheme, has even undermined the
dignity of this Court and impinged upon the basic rule of law.
31. At the cost of repetition, we may notice that there is not even a word
of explanation as to why no steps were taken by the State of Haryana for a
long period of seven years and why tender has not been awarded till date.
The vague averments made in the affidavit are nothing but a lame excuse to
somechow avoid the present proceedings. The State of Haryana and the
officers concerned, namely, the Secretary, Transport and the Commissioner,
State Transport Authority have violated the orders of this Court and are liable
for the consequences of such disobedience.
32. It was expected of the officers-in-charge and particularly the
Secretary, Transport and Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the
State of Haryana to at least carefully read the orders of this Court and ensure
their implementation in their correct perspective. We would have expected
such high officers of the State to act fairly, expeditiously and in accordance
with the orders of this Court. If the State concerned would have taken timely
and appropriate steps in accordance with the law and the orders of this Court,
it would have not only saved the time of the Court, which it had spent on
repeated hearings, but would have also saved the public money that it had
spent so far.
33. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Secretary,
Transport and the Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the State of
Haryana is guilty of wilful disobedience/non-compliance with the orders of
this Court, particularly the orders dated 30-11-20042, 7-4-2011% and 30-8-
20115.
34. Having found them guilty under the provisions of the 1971 Act and
under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, we punish the Secretary,
Transport and the Commissioner, State Road Transport Authority of the State
of Haryana as under:
(i) They are punished to pay a fine of Rs 2000 each and in default,
they shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
fifteen days.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Wednesday, August 07, 2024
Printed For: Vaish Associates Advocates
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
True Print’ TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment s protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastem Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.

H.S. RAJASHEKARA v. STATE BANK OF MYSORE 285

(if) We impose exemplary costs of Rs 50,000 on the State of

Haryana, which amount, at the first instance, shall be paid by the State
but would be recovered from the salaries of the erring officers/officials of
the State in accordance with law and such recovery proceedings be
concluded within six months. The costs would be payable to the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee.
(iii) In view of the principle that the courts also invoke contempt
jurisdiction as a tool for compliance with its orders in future, we hereby
direct the State Government and the respondent/contemnor herein now to
positively comply with the orders and implement the Scheme within
eight weeks from today.
35. Copy of this order be circulated to the Chief Secretary/competent
authority of all the States/UTs. It is ordered accordingly.

(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 285

(BEFORE A.K. GANGULY AND J.S. KHEHAR, JJ.)
H.S. RAJASHEKARA .. Petitioner;
Versus
STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER .. Respondents.
SLP (C) No. 10845 of 20097, decided on November 24, 2011
A. Labour Law — Continuous service — “Calendar year” and “block of
twelve months” — For labour related matters terms ‘‘calendar year” and
“block of twelve months™ are interchangeable — It would be sufficient if
petitioner can establish that he had rendered more than 240 days’ service in
a “block of twelve months” — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Ss. 25-F
and 25-B (Paras 12 and 13)
Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of India, (2004) 1 SCC 605 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 248; Budge
Budge Jute Mills Co. Ld. v. Workmen, (1970) 1 LLJ 222 (SC), followed
B. Service Law — Absorption — Entitlement to — In peculiar facts and
circumstances of case, absorption directed — The same not to be treated as
a precedent, as the same rendered keeping in mind peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case — Simple question raised by petitioner was with
reference to decision of respondent Bank in absorbing D as permanent
employee and his case not being distinguishable, directed as above
(Paras 11 to 14)
H.S. Rajashekar v. State Bank of Mysore, WP No. 45932 of 1999 decided on 14-12-2004
(Kant), referred to
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 ; 2006 SCC (L&S) 753, distinguished
on facts
H.S. Rajashekar v. State Bank of Mysore, WP No. 22324 of 2003, order dated 13-11-2007
(Kanty; H.S. Rajashekara v. State Bank of Mysore, Writ Appeal No. 24 of 2008 decided
on 4-11-2008 (Kant), reversed
J-D/48961/CL
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 4-11-2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in
‘WA No. 24 of 2008 (S-REG)