The Practical Lawyer

Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273

Contempt of Court

Object

Rationale behind doctrine of contempt of court is protecting dignity and authority of court - Said protection is required
more so when proceedings are before Supreme Court, (2012) 1 SCC 273-A

Constitution of India

Arts. 129, 32 and 136 - Punishment for wilful disobedience - Contemnor officials punished with fine of Rs 2000 each
and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days - Exemplary costs of Rs 50,000 imposed on State
payable to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and directed to be recovered from salaries of erring
officers/officials and such recovery proceedings directed to be concluded within six months, (2012) 1 SCC 273-B

Contempt of Court

Civil Contempt

Wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct - Passive/dormant/apathetic attitude of government officers in not

implementing valid public scheme in public interest in spite of repeated directions of Supreme Court - Effect, punishment
and further directions for compliance - State of Haryana not taking any steps for about 7 years in spite of repeated
directions of Supreme Court regarding implementation of Scheme relating to new high security registration plates
(HSRP) - Thereafter, in spite of directions, steps taken being insincere and there being inaction for months in opening
financial bids to award contract pursuant to said Scheme - There being no explanation for delay and only vague
averments and lame excuses - Officer(s) concerned, held, are guilty of wilful disobedience/non-compliance with orders of
Supreme Court, particularly orders dated 30-11-2004, 7-4-2011 and 30-8-2011 - They caused prejudice to public and
undermined dignity of Supreme Court - Officer(s) concerned, therefore, punished with fine of Rs 2000 each and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days - Exemplary costs of Rs 50,000 imposed on State payable to
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and directed to be recovered from salaries of erring officers/officials and such
recovery proceedings directed to be concluded within six months - Government and respondent contemnors directed to
positively comply with orders and implement Scheme within eight weeks, (2012) 1 SCC 273-C

Contempt of Court

Nature and Scope

Nature and Scope of contempt proceedings - Invocation of contempt jurisdiction - Factors, considerations and
principles, restated and discussed by distinguishing: (a) civil and criminal contempt, and (b) Indian and English law,
(2012) 1 SCC 273-D

Contempt of Court

Civil Contempt

Wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct - Passive/dormant/apathetic disobedience, whether contemptuous - Held,

where contemnor neither obeys orders nor makes appropriate prayers for extension of time to obey orders, only the
possible inference in law is that such party is disobeying court orders - Passive/dormant disobedience or active
disobedience are both contemptuous acts - Defences of lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation in
not obeying court directions/orders, held, can hardly be raised as a defence even if alleged contemnors are high officials,
(2012) 1 SCC 273-E

Contempt of Court

Nature and Scope

https://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated: Sunday, September 13, 2020

 The Practical Lawyer

If orders of court are not carried out by Government or its instrumentality, contempt jurisdiction can be invoked to punish
contemnor (or government officers responsible) so that future orders are complied with - Application of said principle in
USA and Australia pointed out, (2012) 1 SCC 273-F

https://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated: Sunday, September 13, 2020