BIGYAN KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 18-03-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A 
BIGYAN KUMAR & ORS. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MARCH 18. 1988 
8 
[RANGANATII MISRA AND MURARI MORON DUTI, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections 2 and 12-0bedience to 
Court orders-Necessity for-On failure-Rod of justice to descend 
down to punish-Growing conduct of parties and public officers, in .A 
C particular, of ignoring Court orders-Deprecated. 
' 
Practice and Procedure: Orders of Court-Everyone to render ~ 
due obedience-Failure should be punished. 
The Supreme Court issued certain directions in respect of peti· 
D tioner No. 9 regarding accommodation and reinstatement iit service in a 
writ petition filed on behalf of forty petitioners, working in Pension 
Paying Office, Pokhara, in Nepal, praying for directions to the Union of 
India, regarding their permanency and other benefits applicable to 
similar Union Government employees. 
E 
In the petition for contempt, it was alleged that these directions 
were not implemented, and that consequent to the_ filing of the writ 
petition, the authorities, especially local officers, were ill-treating the 
petitioners. 
· 
On notice being issued, affidavit on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 
F to 3 and 5 were filed tendering unconditional apology, and explaining 
their positions regarding the implementation of the Court's orders. 
Respondent No. 6, who was the officer-in-<:harge of the Pension 
Paying Office and who was responsible for the implementation of the 
Court's orders, also tendered an unconditional apology and stated, in 
G ltis affidavit, that petitioner No. 9 was dispossessed of the residential 
accommodation on 14th August, 1987, by which time the Court's or~ers 
of 7th August, 1987 had not been received by him, and the accommoda· 
lion had already been given to another person, that petitioner No. 9 was 
later restored to service and given possession of similar accommodation 
and that the rent paid by the petitioner for the private accommodation 
H will be paid out of Government account, and requested for condonation 
280 
-+ 
' 
·~ 
BIGYAN KUMAR v. U.0.1. 
281 
of delay in implementing the orders of this Court. 
Disposing of the Petition, 
HELD: This Court records it serious concern and disapproval of 
the growing conduct of parties and public officers, in particular, of 
A 
). 
ignoring the directions of the Court and the multiplying instances of B · 
confrontation. [285F) 
The Court, including the apex one, is a part of the State and is a 
, built-in mechanism of the Constitution to administer justice in accord-
/'- ance with law. For discharging that dnty, the Court has got to adopt an 
· 
attitude of critical assessment of situations connected with litigation 
..:{ 
brought before it for adjudication. The manner of functioning of the 
' 
Court in accord with the Rule of Law has to be dispassionate, objective 
and analytical. The Judges who preside over these courts do not act 
with a sense of superiority; nor do they look down upon others in the 
community. [285F-G) 
In order that the system may efficiently work and the purpose for 
which the courts are established is duly served, it is necessary that 
everyone within the framework of the Rule of Law must accept the 
system, render due obedience to orders made and in the event of failure 
c 
D 
of compliance, the rod of justice must descend down to punish. 
Everyone within the system must realise this situation and should not 
E 
unnecessarily get into a confrontation. [285H; 286A-B) · 
In the instant case; there is some material which if probed into 
; 
further, might have established that respondent No. 6 had notice of the . 
i. order of this Court before physical dispossession of the petitioner was 
' 
effected. There is allegation of adoption of an attitude of resentment by 
p 
respondent No. 6 or for the matter of that the local officers, when the 
writ petition was filed in this Court. That backdrop could supply the 
motive for the delay in complying with the directions of this Court. It is, 
however, not considered expedient to probe further into ttie matter on 
account of the fact that there has been compliance and each of the 
respondents has tendered unqualified apology which is accepted and the 
G 
_J., 
contempt notice is discharged. [285D-E; 286B) 
ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION: Contempt 
Petition 
(Civil) 
No. 27860 of 1987. 
In 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 591of1987. 
H 
G 
"Issue notice returnable on August 14, 1987. Mr. B. 
Parathasarathy accepts the notice for Union oflndia. 
Res

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.