Disregarding A Court's Order May Seem Bold, But Shadows Of Its Consequences Are Long & Cold: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while dealing with a contempt case, remarked, “Disregarding a Court's order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold.”
The Court was dealing with contempt petitions filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant/contemnor from the property belonging to him.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal said, “Contempt of court is a serious legal infraction that strikes at the very soul of justice and the sanctity of legal proceedings. It goes beyond from mere defiance of a Court’s authority, but also denotes a profound challenge to the principles that underpin the rule of law. At its core, it is a profound disavowal of the respect and adherence to the judicial process, posing a concerning threat to integrity of judicial system. When a party engages in contempt, it does more than simply refusing to comply with a Court’s order.”
The Bench added that, by failing to adhere to judicial directives, a contemnor not only disrespects the specific order, but also directly questions the Court’s ability to uphold the rule of law. It further said that the same erodes the public confidence in the judicial system and its ability to deliver justice impartially and effectively.
Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi represented the petitioner while Advocate Nityanand Singh represented the respondent.
Factual Background -
The petitioner/landlord filed suits before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay (Bandra Branch), seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from the Shop and Room of the properties belonging to him, on the ground of bona fide need and also due to non-payment of rent and arrears. The said suits were decreed by the Trial Court and being aggrieved against the same, the respondent preferred appeals before the Appellate Bench. However, the appeals were dismissed and being dissatisfied, the respondent challenged the same before the High Court by filing civil revisions. The High Court dismissed the same and the respondent filed review petitions which were also dismissed.
As the litigation was not to end there only, the respondent challenged the common order passed by the High Court by filing the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Apex Court. The SLPs were dismissed and the Court granted 9 months’ time to vacate the premises subject to filing of undertaking and affidavit. However, the respondent failed to furnish the undertaking and filed review petitions but the same were also dismissed. He filed applications seeking extension of time to vacate the premises but the same was not allowed. Yet the possession of the premises in dispute was not handed over and therefore, the contempt petitions were filed.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case observed, “… power to punish for Contempt of Court’s order is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By addressing and penalizing contemptuous conduct, the legal system reinforces its own legitimacy and ensures that judicial orders and proceedings are taken seriously. This deterrent effect helps to maintain the rule of law and reinforces public’s faith in the judicial process, ensuring that Courts can function effectively without undue interference or disrespect.”
The Court further noted that the Contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings and the ability to address contempt ensures that the authority of the court is respected and that the administration of justice is not hampered by willful disobedience.
“In the said context, the power of this Court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its authority, integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance of its own dignity. Enshrined in Article 129 of the Constitution of India, this power is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and confidence in the judicial system”, it elucidated.
The Court also said that the Courts ordinarily take lenient approach in a case of some delay in compliance of the orders, unless the same is deliberate and willful, on confronting the conduct of the contemnor that strikes the very heart of judicial authority.
“Undoubtedly, this appalling breach of legal decorum has in its face challenged the sanctity of the orders passed by this Court and hence we are constrained to examine Contemnor/tenant’s willful and deliberate act of non-compliance of the order and also the undertaking furnished by him as directed”, it added.
The Court, therefore, said that it is a case in which the contemnor has deliberately and willfully not complied the order of the Court and flouted the same.
“Upon holding the contemnor guilty of the contempt of order of this Court, we had granted an opportunity to him before we pass any order on sentence. Again the contemnor submits that being old aged person, having many illness and to support a large family, he may be granted pardon and be allowed a week time to vacate the suit premises”, it noted.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the petitions and directed the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the properties within seven days.
Cause Title- M/s Sitaram Enterprises v. Prithviraj Vardichand Jain (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 685)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aniruddha Joshi and AOR Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy.
Respondent: Advocate Nityanand Singh, AOR Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocates Radhika Goel, V. V. Manoharam, Joohi, Saurabh Upadhyay, and Prakash Kumar Singh.
