CONTEMPT OF COURT

MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA

V.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
[(2008) 7 SCC 328].

SUBMITTED BY – ABHISHEK SHARMA

ENROLL NO:00119103516
Contempt of Court

• According to the Oxford Dictionary, contempt is the state of being despised or dishonored;
disgrace. However, in India, contempt is classified under two major categories:

• 1. Civil contempt

• 2. Criminal contempt

• Civil Contempt: According to section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 civil contempt
means willful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a
court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• Criminal Contempt: According to section 2(c) of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal
contempt means the publication (whether by word, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

 Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or

 Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, o

 Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner.
MANINDERJIT SINGH BITTA V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [(2008) 7 SCC 328].

• FACTS

• The Government of India, on 28-3-2001, issued a notification under the provisions of Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 read with Rule 50 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for implementation of the provisions of the Act. The
Central Government issued an Order which dealt with various facets of manufacture, supply and fixation of new high
security registration plates (hereinafter “HSRP”). The Central Government also issued a Notification for further
implementation of the said order and the HSRP Scheme.

• A writ petition was filed in this Court challenging the Central Government's power to issue such notification as well as
the terms and conditions of the tender process. In addition to the above writ petition before this Court, various other writ
petitions were filed in different High Courts raising the same challenge. All these petitions were referred to a larger Bench
of three Judges of Supreme Court, by order Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India 
• The three-Judge Bench finally disposed of the writ petitions in Assn. of Registration
Plates v. Union of India. While dismissing the writ petition, the connected matters and also
issued certain directions for appropriate implementation of the Scheme.

• Non-compliance by the different States with regard to the statutory rules, implementation of
the Scheme as well as the orders passed by this Court resulted in filing of the present writ
petition. This writ petition also came to be disposed of by a three-Judge Bench of this Court
vide its judgment dated 8-5-2008 titled as Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India .
• SUPREME COURT OBSERVATION

• The Court observed that most of the States have failed to implement the Scheme and
the directions contained in the judgments of this Court. Before invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against
the authorities concerned of the respective defaulting States, this Court considered it
necessary to only require the presence of officers in Court and provided them with
another opportunity to ensure compliance with the directions issued by this Court.
• JUDGEMENT 

• On the basis of the implementation of the scheme, the States can be classified into four categories. In
the first category there are four States/Union Territories: Nagaland, West Bengal, Manipur and
Puducherry, where the tender process was followed, the successful tenderer has been awarded the
contract for supplying security registration plates and the predicted date of enforcement of the
scheme in the State has been fixed.

• Then there is a second category of U.T./States i.e. the U.T. of Chandigarh and the States of Jharkhand
and Bihar which have not followed the procedure for selection and have approved certain vendors.
• The aforesaid States are, therefore, directed to:

• a. Immediately invite tenders;

• b. Finalize the entire tender process within six weeks from today;

• c. File compliance report in this Court, in the form of affidavit stating that tenders
have been finalized and the work of affixation of security registration plates has
begun in every district or part thereof, within two weeks thereafter.
• The third category include the defaulting States of Andhra Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. These
States again can further be divided into two sub-categories. In the first sub-category,
there are States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh which have
informed this Court, by filing of affidavits that they have fixed the dates for
publication of tenders. These States have surprisingly taken not only months but
years to even fix a date for publication of tender.
• This Court would be compelled to take action against default the defaulting States
under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 as well as impose exemplary costs personally
recoverable from the erring officers. However, before we take both these actions
against the above category of defaulting States, we would give them another
opportunity to complete the entire process of publication and issue tender within six
weeks from today.
• The second sub-category of defaulting States, i.e. the States of Haryana, Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. These are the
States which have taken no action at all or have merely initiated the process without any effective result. These are the defaulting
states which have, with impunity, flouted the orders of this Court, despite warnings being issued, including the directions contained in
order. we issue notice to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not initiated, if found guilty, why
they be not punished in accordance with law. Notice shall be issued to:

• a. Secretary (Transport) of the defaulting States.

• b. Commissioner, State Transport Authority of the respective States.

• The last category of States, i.e., the ones that have taken certain effective steps to secure compliance with the statutory provisions and

the scheme. These are the States which have invited tenders in accordance with the selection process that has been approved by this

Court.
• Some of these States have even opened the tender bids however, awarding of tender has not been finalized.
The States of Assam, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Kerala
and the Union Territories of Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar, have prayed for further extension of time
to complete the process. Thus, while granting them such extension, to complete the entire process for
implementation of the scheme, we direct that vehicles in all the districts of the respective States/U.Ts shall
install the HSRP within eight weeks from today without exception and default.
• My Analysis

• In my opinion, the wilful neglect or disobedience of court’s directions and non-compliance by the
different States with regard to the statutory rules, implementation of the Scheme as well as the
orders passed by this Court will tantamount to the contempt of Court.