SALAUDDIN AHMED & ANR. versus SAMTA ANDOLAN

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 29-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 402 
SALAUDDIN AHMED & ANR. 
v. 
SAMTA ANDOLAN 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012) 
AUGUST 29, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURT: 
c 
Contempt of court - Ingredients - Explained. 
Contempt petition - High Court holding the State 
authorities guilty of contempt of court for non-compliance of 
order of Division Bench of the High Court - Held: The 
explanation given on behalf of the State and its authorities 
D cannot be discounted, since in order to act in terms of the 
observations made in. the judgment, the State appointed the 
Bhatnagar Committee tor obtaining quantifiable data in 
respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
candidates so that the provisions of the amended Clause (4-
E A) of Art. 16 of the Constitution could be given effect to -
Therefore, despite the fact that there has been delay on the 
part of the State and its authorities in giving effect to the 
observations made in the judgments of High Court and 
Supreme Court, there was no willful or deliberate intention on 
F their part to defy the orders of the High Court - Accordingly, 
the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of 
the High Court holding the appellants guilty of contempt of 
court for purported violation of the order passed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court on 5.2.2010 is set aside -
G Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 16(4-A). 
Writ petitions, including D.B.C.W.P.No.8104 of 2008, 
were filed by the candidates belonging to the general 
category in the State of Rajasthan, challenging the 
H 
402 
SALAUDDIN AHMED & ANR. v. SAMTA ANDOLAN 
403 
Notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.4.2008 issued by 
A 
the State Government. The Division Bench of the High 
Court by its judgment dated 5.2.2010 quashed both the 
Notifications on the ground that the conditions precedent 
laid down in M. Nagraj's1 case had not been followed. It 
was also held that the right vested in the candidates by 
B 
virtue of Notification dated 1.4.1997 and protected by 
Notification dated 28.12.2002 was illegally taken away by 
Notification dated 25.4.2008. On 16.11.2010 the general 
category candidates filed D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 
914 of 2010 in D.B. W.P. No. 8104 of 2009 alleging non- c 
compliance of the judgment dated 
5.2.2010. 
Subsequently, Contempt Petition No. 359 of 2011 was 
also filed. It was mainly contended that after the 
Notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.4.2008 were 
quashed by the judgment dated 5.2.2010 which became 
0 
final on dismissal of the SLP of the State Government on 
7.12.20102, the State authorities had, by their inaction in 
complying with the requirements set out in M. Nagaraj's 
case, committed contempt of c,ourt. The Division Bench 
of the High Court accepted the same and held the 
appellants guilty cf contempt of court for deliberate and 
E 
willful violation of the order dated 5.2.2010. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In order to establish that a person had 
F 
deliberately and willfully committed contempt of court, 
two essential ingredients have to be proved: Firstly, it has 
to be established that an order has been passed by the 
court which either directs certain things to be done by a 
person or to restrain such person or persons from doing 
G 
certain acts and that the person or persons had 
knowledge of the said order. Secondly, it has to be 
1. 
M. Nagaraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336. 
2. 
Suraj Bhan Meena and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2010) 14 
SCR 532 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A established that despite having knowledge of such order, 
the person concerned deliberately and willfully violated 
the same with the intention of lowering the dignity and 
image of the court. [para 36] [422-E-F] 
8 
Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 
2010 (13) SCR 599 = (2010) 12 SCC 770 - referred to. 
Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 
1 SCC 273; Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kera/a & Anr. 
C 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 = (2000) 6 SCC 359 - cited 
1.2 Admittedly, Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008, 
along with several other writ petitions, were disposed of 
by the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 
5.2.2010, by quashing the Notifications dated 25.4.2008 
D and 28.12.2002, which had been issued by the State 
Government without following the exercise indicated in 
M. Nagaraj's case. While quashing the said Notifications, 
the D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.