PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. versus ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 12 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 12 S.C.R. 818 
A 
PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. 
v. 
ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY 
WELFARE AND ORS. 
Suo Motu Contempt Petition Nos.195-196 of 2012 
B 
n 
c 
Civil Appeal Nos.4318 and 4319 of 2012 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
s.12 - Apology tendered by contemnor - Consideration 
of - Held: Consideration of an apology as contemplated 
D under Explanation to s.12(1) is not a panacea to avoid action 
in law universally - While considering the apology and its 
acceptance, the Court inter alia considers a) the conduct of 
the contemnor prior and subsequent to the tendering of 
apology - If the conduct is contemptuous, prejudicial and has 
harmed the system and other innocent persons as a whole, 
E it would be a factor which would weigh against the contemnor; 
and b) the stage and time when such apology is tendered -
An apology which is not bonafide and has been tendered to 
truncate the process of law with the ulterior motive of escaping 
the consequences of flagrant violation of orders of the Court 
F and causes discernible disrespect to the course of 
administration of justice, cannot be permitted - The Court has 
to draw a balance between cases where tendering of an 
apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to inflict 
punishment on the contemnor - Words and Phrases -
G "bonafide". 
s. 12 - Plea of contemnor that directions or guidelines 
issued by Supreme Court for general implementation cannot 
invite proceedings under the Act - Held: Not tenable -
H 
818 
PRIYA GUPTA AND ANR. v. ADDL. SECY. MINISTRY OF 
819 
HEALTH AND FAMILYWaFARE 
Violation of general directions issued by Supreme Court A 
would attract the rigours of the provisions of the Act - Law 
declared by Supreme <;ourt whether in the form of a 
substantive judgment infer se a party or directions of a 
general nature intended to achieve constitutional goals of 
equality and equal opportunity must be adhered to and there 
B 
cannot be an artificial distinction drawn in between such class 
of cases - Whichever class they may belong to, a contemnor 
cannot build an argument to the effect that the disobedience 
was of a general direction and not of a specific order issued 
inter se parties - Such distinction, if permitted, shall be c 
opposed to the basic rule of law - Once the essentials for 
initiation of contempt proceedings are satisfied, the Court 
would initiate action uninfluenced by the nature of the 
directions i.e. as to whether the directions were specific in a 
/is pending between the parties or were of general nature or 0 
were in rem. 
While disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012 
titled Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., this Court 
not only noticed breach of time schedule as well as 
various other irregularities that were committed by the 
E 
various stakeholders, but also returned a finding as to 
failure of the performance of duties and obligations by 
the authorities in accordance with law as stated by this 
Court. The Court noticed that there was calculated 
tampering with the schedule specified under the 
F 
regulations, and the judgments of the Court with a clear 
Intention to grant admission to less meritorious 
candidates over candidates of higher merit and a case of 
favouritism and arbitrariness and thus the career of the 
students of higher merit was jeopardised by the abuse 
G 
and manipulation of provided procedure. Consequently, 
direction was given for Initiation of proceedings under the 
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against 
the defaulting persons and for Issuance of notice. 
H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the contemnor Dr. S.L. Adile, it was 
pleaded that the Court may take a lenient view and 
discharge the notice of contempt against the contemnor 
in view of his unconditional, unqualified apology being 
tendered at the very first instance; that the apology 
B tendered was bona fide and, thus, should be accepted 
by the Court; that Explanation to Section 12(1) places an 
obligation upon the Court to consider apology in a very 
objective manner and further provides that the Court 
shall not reject the same merely on the ground of it being 
C qualified or conditional if it is made bonafidely. Without 
prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the 
contemnor raised contention that every contempt, 
whether initiated on application of a party or suo motu 
by the Court, has to

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