LI Network
Published on: February 10, 2024 at 12:05 IST
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has clarified that a mere delay in complying with a Court order does not amount to contempt unless there is evidence of deliberate and wilful intent.
The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act would not be triggered solely by a delay in compliance.
The Court made this observation while adjudicating a case involving an IAS officer convicted by the High Court for a willful and deliberate violation of a court order, despite eventual compliance.
The court imposed a nominal fine of Rs. 500 as a penalty.
The underlying order, subject to the contempt allegation, was eventually complied with, albeit with a delay. However, the High Court asserted that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, it would be deemed a wilful and deliberate violation of the court order.
In response to the High Court’s decision, the officer filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction.
The Supreme Court, considering contempt proceedings as quasi-judicial, held that unless there is clear evidence of deliberate or wilful actions by the alleged contemnors during compliance, a mere delay should not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Highlighting the quasi-judicial nature of contempt proceedings, the court stated, “The proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-judicial in nature, and therefore, as the Court comes to a conclusion that the act was neither deliberate nor wilful, it could not have convicted the appellants for Contempt of Courts Act.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the officer’s appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and reinforcing the principle that contempt charges require a deliberate and wilful violation of court orders.