Delay In Compliance Without Wilful Intent Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the delay in complying with the Court's direction without any willful or contumacious intent doesn't invite contempt of court.

The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the contempt petition filed by an ex-bank manager, against the non-compliance of the Court's order which directed the Bank to disburse the outstanding amount to the bank manager within a period of three months. The bank failed to make the payment within three months' time limit, arguing that the delay in compliance was unintentional and pleaded administrative hurdles post-merger of the bank with Punjab National Bank.

Observing that the breach was not deliberate and intentional, the judgment authored by Justice Masih held against the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction in the present case.

“Tested on the anvil of the above principles, we find that although the Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by this Court, the material placed on record do not demonstrate that the delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent. The explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.”, the court observed.

Contempt Jurisdiction Not A Forum For Asserting New Claims Or Substantive Reliefs

Further, the Court criticized the Appellant for raising a new ground in the contempt petition about the grant of pension, as there was no adjudication to the said effect on the grant of pension. The Court said that “Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking substantive reliefs which were neither raised nor granted earlier.”

“In Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others (2002), this Court held that contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms. Accordingly, the prayer for pension cannot be entertained at this stage.”, the court added.

Cause Title: A.K. JAYAPRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRs VERSUS S.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 847

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs. Nilita Jaju, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv.