MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY versus ABDUL MAJID RATHER

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 06-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY 
v. 
ABDUL MAJID RATHER 
APRIL 6, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court : Court's orde~ompliance with-Court should 
preserve its dignity by ensuring compliance with its ordet'-But should not 
require obedience to order incapable of compliance with---Contemnor--Duty 
of-Should not ignore court's order and plead difficulties at implementation 
stage-Should take prompt steps by invoking appellate procedures with regard 
to order incapable of compliance. 
In a Writ Petition filed by the respondent seeking promotion to the 
D post of Associate Professor, the High Court passed an interim order dated 
21.9.1992 directing the appellant tu grant ud-hoc promotion to the respon-
dent. Subsequently, the respondent initiated contempt proceedings against 
the appellant for not implementing the Court's order and the High Court 
directed issue of non-bailable warrant against the appellant and directed 
E 
the Additional Advocate General, representing the appellant, not to defend 
him but to assist the court. The High Court also declined to accept the 
unqualified apology tendered by the appellant till he implemented the 
order dated 21.9.92 and purged himself of the contempt and further 
directed him to be personally present in the Court on the next date of 
F 
hearing. 
The appellant preferred appeals in this Court contending that (1) 
the interim order was incapable of compliance with and its implementation 
was against the rules inasmuch as the respondent was not possessed of 
the requisite experience and it was not the appellant who could accord 
G promotion since it was to be done by the State Public Service Commission 
or the Departmental Promotion Committee; (2) the Court was not justified 
in directing the Additional Advocate General not to defend the appellant 
but to assist the Court. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
396 
J 
•\' ..
MOHD. IQBAL v. ABDUL MAJID 
397 
• +· 
' 
HELD : 1. The law of contempt is based on sound public policy by A 
punishing any conduct which shakes the public confidence in the ad-
ministration of justice. The Court must always be zealous in preserving its 
authority and dignity but at the .ame time it will be inadvisable to require 
compliance of an order impossible of compliance at the instance of the 
person proceeding against for contempt. [400-F, 401-E] 
B 
t 
2. Normally speaking, it cannot be gainsaid that the order ought 
to have been obeyed but it appears that there are insuperable difficulties 
in implementing the order. The appellant was expressing his genuine 
difficulties with regard to the implementation of the order. In such a 
situation the insistence of the courts on implementation may not square c 
with realities of the situation and the practicability of implementation 
of the courts's direction. Hooking a party to contempt proceedings and 
enforcing obedience to such orders hardly lends credence to judicial 
process and authority, more so, in the peculiar facts and circumstances 
of the case. (401-A, DJ 
D 
.. 
3. The High Court was not justified in directing the Additional 
Advocate-General not to appear for the appellant but only assist the Court. 
(401-FJ 
4. However, the conduct of the appellant necessitating issue of non~ E 
bailable warrant is not in keeping with the responsibility of the office he 
holds. Greater respect should have been shown to court and if he was 
aggrieved by the order, he should have taken prompt steps to invoke the 
appellate procedures. The appellant could not ignore the order and plead 
the difficulties of implementation at the time contempt proceedings are 
F 
~ 
initiated. He should tender an unconditional apology before the High 
' 
Court for these lapses. [401-G-H, 402-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 2297-98 
of 1994. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.93 of the J ammu & Kashmir 
High Court in Contempt No. 52 of 1993_: • 
.. • 
Ashok Mathur for the Appellant. 
R. Sasiprabhu for the Respondent. 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 s.c.R: 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
MOHAN, J. Special leave granted in both SLPs. 
Both these matters can be dealt with under common judgment. The 
short facts are as under : 
The respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the Faculty of 
Medicine, Medical College, Srinagar, tinder Order No. 197-ME of 1981. 
He took up foreign assignment with Subya General Hospital at Saudi 
Arabia. He was in Saudi Arbia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.