Ambushing Tenets Of Constitutionalism: Contemptuous Disregard For Supreme Court's Orders

Chronologically, it must be known that all the judgments, orders and directions passed by the Supreme Court are in the public interest, clearly upholding the fundamental rights, the constitutional and other legal-statutory rights of the ones being affected. Even if a direction is passed against any party in a particular case, the same is done to set a precedent in order to avoid future discrepancies and divergences. Any party, person, or individual going against the orders or directions of the Supreme Court, are resultantly acted against through the powers of contempt[ii] that are accorded upon the Apex Court. This power of contempt thereby, forms an important pillar of democratic governance and responsible judiciary in addition to the others.

It was in this light that the Supreme Court in an order dated 9^th May, 2025 heavily reprimanded and demoted a Deputy Collector for acting in defiance of an order passed by itself. The Apex Court, acting within its constitutional ambit observed that, “a message requires to be given to everybody that no one, howsoever high he may be, is above law. When a constitutional court, or of that matter, any Court, issues any direction, every authority, howsoever high he or she may be, is bound to respect said orders and comply with the same. A disobedience of the orders passed by the Court attacks the foundation of rule of law on which the democracy is based[iii]”, noted Justice B.R. Gavai. It must be noted that Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice AG Masih were hearing the matter whereby it was also noted that, “we want a message to go throughout the country that nobody would tolerate disobedience of the Court's order.[iv]” In this present matter before the court, the honourable division bench of the Apex Court confirmed the conviction of the petitioner (Deputy Collector, Andhra Pradesh) for contempt of court, while declining to accord a 2-month imprisonment, as was earlier imposed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh; and was given a demotion as well as directed to pay a fine Rs. 1 lakh. This was done because the previous sentence would have led to dismissal from service. The Apex Court, while coming down heavily on the petitioner-deputy collector not only chided him for resulting in loss to numerous citizens because of his actions, but also showed its rightful and calculated disquiet against the petitioner for being adamant in refusing demotion, at an earlier instance.

It must be noted that the Apex Court of India has got extensive power of contempt, deriving the same from Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Apart from this, the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court Rules, 1975 is also one of the regulating statutes. Before analysing the extensive powers of the Supreme Court of India with regard to contempt; the very meaning of contempt must be understood. 'Contempt of Court' as a term defined by Lord Diplock in the landmark case of Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd. (1973 W.L.R. 3 298) means, “a very generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement if their disputes.” It can be effortlessly defined as any act which entails disobedience towards the court of law, by any means, whatsoever. Section 2 (a) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines contempt of courts as a civil contempt or a criminal contempt. Criminal contempt has been specifically defined as- 'scandalizing/lowering the authority of the court', 'prejudicing/interfering with the due course of any judicial proceeding; and,interfering/obstructing the administration of justice in any other manner'. In India, the historical timeline of contempt can be traced back to Kautilya's Arthshastra whereby chopping off the tongue was the punishment given to anyone disobeying the authority of the King or His council. However, the present form of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was taken only when the H.N. Sanyal Committee submitted its report in 1963. It was only then, that independent India had her own contempt legislation.

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with the punishment for contempt. It must be noted that the constitutional courts of India- the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to punish the contempting party under this section. However, it also must be noted that any punishment under this Act is meant to be reasonable, proportionate, and duly within the confines of the said legislation only. Apart from this, Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states two conditions whereby contempt cannot be made punishable. This is specifically in cases whereby the Court is not of the opinion that a certain contemptuous act substantially interferes or tends to substantially interfere with the due course of justice; and there is an existence of justification of truth, which forces the revocation of contempt proceedings. Section 14 deals with the procedure of contempt proceedings in the court of record and Section 15 of the said Act deals with the procedure of the contempt proceeding outside the court of records. Contempt proceedings can also be initiated against a company, particularly the official who was at that time responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Criminal contempt proceedings are succinctly defined under Section 2 (c ) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the same must be read with Article 21 of the constitution of India, as well as section 356 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023 (erstwhile sec. 499, IPC). The locus classicus Dr. Subramaninan Swamy v Union of India (MANU/SC/0621/2016) upheld the constitutional validity of the criminal defamation, as it is.

These powers were extensively dealt with in the landmark case of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiva Shankar & Ors[v], categorically stating the different facets of these sacred powers. Additionally, important precedents such as In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Another[vi], In Re: Hon'ble Justice Shri C.S. Karnan[vii], In Re: Vijay Kurle[viii], M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala[ix], Hari Singh Nagra v. Kapil Sibal and Others[x], Abhyudya Mishra v. Kunal Kamra[xi], and Aditya Kashyap v. Rachit Taneja[xii] - are all reigned in while deciding any of the cases of the contempt by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. It must be noted that the Supreme Court has always maintained a very positive attitude towards any and every kind of criticism that it receives, and does not go further in taking any kind of action in each and every case. However it is in very rare cases that these powers are invoked because the same are extensive and can lead to a number of consequences for the one, against whom these are invoked.

From the aforementioned discussion, it must be conclusively noted that contempt of court powers of the Apex Court as utilised efficiently in the present case (and all the other cases), are directly connected to the independence of judiciary, and related principles. These principles are undoubtedly- the democratic principles of governance, constitutionalism, and postulates of global constitutionalism. Therefore, any non-adherence to the directions, orders or judgments of the Apex Court or the constitutional courts (which have the power of contempt), is directly an attack, a deliberate ambush towards the tenets of constitutionalism, that must be extraordinarily highlighted so as to avoid any future transgressions. The present case is just a case in point; but if one looks up to the larger picture- the bonafide intentions of the Apex Court can be clearly seen and proficiently articulated. These not just include directions to follow the orders of the Court, but also to follow the spirit behind the same. This spirit is the essence of the Indian democracy, upheld proactively and guarded zealously by the adept anchor of the Indian judicial system- The Supreme Court of India.

Views are personal