MOHD. ASLAM OBHURE, ACCHAN RIZVI versus UNION OF INDIA STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 24-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MOHD. ASLAM OBHURE, ACCHAN RIZVI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND G.N. RAY, J.] 
Contempt of Courts Act-Contempt proceedings-Failure of obedience 
I 
to judicial pronouncement-If reasonable steps not taken to prevent 
violation of orders of Court-Presumption that Government intended not to 
take such preventive steps-No immunity for any authority of Government, 
if a personal element shown in act of disobedience of order of Court, from 
consequence of an order of Court .. 
Contempt of Courts Act- Offence of Contempt of Court-Wilful 
disobedience of order of Court-Bahri Masjid Case-Undertaking given by 
Chief Minister of a State both in his personal capacity and on behalf of his 
Government-Flagrant breach of undertaking-Personal element shown in 
act of disobedience of order of Court-Reasonable steps not taken to 
prevent violation of order of court-Chief Minister of the State convicted of 
an offence of Contempt of Court-Sentence of imprisonment of one day 
with fine of Rs. 2, 000 imposed 
A complaint of wilful disobedience of orders of the Supreme Court 
has been _instituted against the then Chief Minister of the State of Uttar 
Pradesh. The subject matter of these contempt proceedings arises out 
of events that occurred during the month of July 1992 in relation to a 
land in Ayodhya which was acquired by the State Government, the 
acquisition was ostensibly for the purpose of developing the acquired 
land as an amenity for pilgrims at Ayodhya. The acquisition 
proceedings were challenged in those proceedings, the interlocutory 
order came to be made incorporating the undertaking given by the 
Chief Minister before the National Integration Council. 
It was alleged in these contempt proceedings that these orders 
made by the Supreme Court have been deliberately and wilfully flouted 
and disobeyed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Certain affidavits were 
filed pointing out that large scale construction work of a permanent 
nature was carried out on the land in utter disregard of the order of 
H 
this Court. It was further alleged in these contempt. petitions that the 
104 
MOHD. ASLAM v. U.0.1. STATE OF U. P. 
105 
then Chief Minister of the State, in view of his ideological and political A 
affinity with the Bhartiya Janta Party and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad 
and their commitment to the building of Sri Ram Temple, deliberately 
encouraged and permitted the grossest violation of the Court's orders. 
The defence in substance was that the constructions were initially 
of the nature of a 'levelling operations' done by the State Government B 
for the pilgrims. However later the large congregation of Sadhus who 
had assembled at the land took upon themselves to make the 
co;:istructions and that their number was so large that any coercive 
preventive action would have triggered off an adverse reaction and that 
even those constructions which were in the nature of platform did not 
amount to permanent structure such as were prohibited by the order of C 
the Court. 
The questions that arose for consideration were; (1) Whether the 
undertaking given by the Chief Minister before the National 
Integration Council which was in terms recapitulated and incorporated 
in the order of this Court could be said to be an undertaking given by D 
the Chief Minister personally or was merely an undertaking on behalf 
of the U.P. Government: 
(2) Whether there was any construction of a permanent nature 
carried on the land in wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court; 
(3) Whether these construction activities were carried on by or at 
the instance of the State Government or its authorities or were done in 
connivance with and assistance and encouragement of State 
Government; 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD 1.1. On the issue whether there was construction-massive 
construction - in violation of the Court's order, no other material than 
E 
F 
the very admission of the State authorities are sufficient to justify a 
finding that there were such violations of the Court's orders. There was 
massive work undertaken and executed on the land in violation of the G 
Court's order. (114-H) 
1.2. It is not merely positive acts of violations but also surreptitious 
and indirect aids to circumvention and violation of the orders that are 
equally impermissible. If reasonable steps are not taken to prevent the 
violation of the order of the Court, Go

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