Right To Reap Fruits Of Litigation By Getting Court Orders Implemented Without Booking Any Delay Is Akin To Fundamental Right: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that the right to reap the fruits of litigation by getting the judgments, orders, and directions of the court implemented without booking any delay unimpeded by the lethargic conduct is also a right akin to the fundamental right.
The Court had taken suo motu cognizance relating to the contempt orders.
A Division Bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria remarked, “The casual, lethargic and insensitive approach on the part of the authorities towards the compliance of the orders and directions of the courts cannot be tolerated. It has to be dealt with sternly. As the justice delayed is justice denied, too belated compliance is not to be countenanced, but has to be viewed as contempt of court itself committed in disguise or in indirect manner. … As right to approach the court is a fundamental right, right to reap the fruits of litigation by getting the judgments, orders and directions of the court implemented without booking any delay unimpeded by the lethargic conduct on the part of the authorities, is also a right akin to fundamental.”
The Bench said that, one of the measures to judge democratic commitment of any government is the respect it accords to the orders of the court and at the same time, the real majesty of courts lies in its vibrant existence and effective functioning. It added by saying that such vibrancy and effectiveness, in turn, would be achieved by ensuring due implementation and swift obedience of the judgments and orders of the court.
There were some instances due to which the High Court took cognizance. One of these were that, on March 25, 2024, the Court while dealing with contempt of court case, came across a plea in which the order passed on September 1, 2023 by the Single Judge was found to be not complied with. The direction was only to consider and decide the application of the petitioner in respect of allotment of industrial site and the same was issued by the court upon assurance given by the counsel for the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board.
The High Court in view of the various instances noted, “The speedy implementation of the judgments and orders of the Court is inextricably interwoven in the enforcement of rule of law. It is part of observance of rule of law. … no order of the court should lose its efficacy because of its non-compliance or compliance at such a belated stage which would render the compliance meaningless. The orders and directions of the court which are brought under contempt jurisdiction bear a testimony of such non-compliance or delayed compliance.”
The Court said that the compliance of the court’s orders and directions is imperative, else, it would have the tendency of shaking the confidence of public in the administration of justice. It further said that long inaction and supine apathy towards compliance of the court’s orders and directions tantamount to obstruct the course of justice inasmuch as the compliance of the court’s order has to be viewed as an integral part of dispensation of justice and administration of justice.
“It could be viewed that right to reap the fruits of the relief granted by the court is, in a way, a fundamental right of a litigant-citizen, when right to approach the court itself is a fundamental right. … this Court is at pains to notice that during last two weeks and more, while dealing with the petitions filed under the Contempt of the Courts Act 1971, the directions and orders of the Court are not seen attended to by the authorities, and even the formal kind of directions, which although would affect the rights of the litigants, remained without any compliance”, it observed.
The Court also noted that the long and persistent denial of the rights flowing from the court orders could themselves be said to be violative of the facets of Article 14 read with Article 21 of the Constitution.
“In light of the state of affairs emerging from the representative instances referred to above where the directions in the judgments and orders of the courts are not complied with and the authorities have been found sitting tight over them for unreasonably long period, this Court invokes its suo-moto proceedings exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution disapproving inaction in all such cases, whether brought before the court or not”, it ordered.
The Court emphasised that the semi-government authorities, statutory bodies or corporations which are also the limb of the State, bear equal responsibility of the kind and nature towards the judgments and orders of the court and the directions issued on judicial side.
The Court, therefore, called upon all the respondents to respond to the following aspects:
(i) What method of processing is adopted after and once orders or judgments of the High Court, or any other Court, are received by the Department or in the office of competent authority?
(ii) Whether any special branch or designated authority is made functional, to treat, deal with and act upon, the orders and directions by the courts to take them to their logical end of compliance?
(iii) Whether any machinery or mechanism is created internally in the Department or governmental bodies for ensuring compliance of the directions of the courts as may be required as per the orders and judgments of the courts?
(iv) What steps are generally taken by the authorities concerned to attend to, to supervise, to monitor and to effectuate the orders and directions of the courts?
(v) Whether any disciplinary measures are evolved or taken against the erring Officers who are found to be sitting tight over the orders and directions of the courts or those who are guilty of non-compliance within the time stipulated in the order or within reasonable time?
The Court observed that it is necessary that at the hierarchies of Government, a proper and effective machinery is created to oversee the regard, respect, and implementation of the court’s orders.
“The beneficiaries are the class of litigants, who will be benefited if the authorities activate themselves to discharge their constitutional duty to obey and implement the orders of the courts without booking any delay on their part, without which, it will not be possible for the litigants to enjoy the results of the litigation which may have ended in their favour. All the more, the orders of the court are the source of rights and obligations of the litigants”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the case on June 5, 2024.
