Contempt action can be taken only in respect of established wilful disobedience of court order

In the matter of Abhishek Kumar Singh vs. G. Pattanaik [Contempt Petition (Civil) 625¬-626 OF 2019] decided on 03.06.2021 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

FACTS: In these batch cases, the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam annulled the recruitment process pursuant to which the petitioners were employed, thereby terminating services of the petitioners. The said order of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam was set aside by the Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 28.11.2017 which directed that the petitioners be permitted to work and be aid regular monthly salary. This was later upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2018. Contempt petitions were filed alleging that the full effect of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad is not being given and the same is in wilful disobedience of this Court’s judgment dated 15.11.2018 as the Petitioners have been appointed afresh instead of reinstatement with continuity of service along with arrears of wages.

HELD: The bench went ahead with explaining the term ‘wilful disobedience’ and stated that it is well settled that contempt action ought to proceed only in respect of established wilful disobedience of the order of the court. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Ram Kishan vs Tarun Bajaj [(2014) 16 SCC 204] wherein it was held that:

“in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts do not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished”

In the present case, while examining the contentions of the parties, the bench noted that the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court do not contain explicit direction to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service and back wages as such. “Instead, the expression used is only to permit the petitioners to work on the posts” which were held by them at the time of their termination and ” “to pay them regular salary month by month” and “as and when the same accrues to them”. The bench held that the present case in hand while applying the principles of wilful disobedience does not pass the test of contempt action.

The court also added that it ought not to take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment and order. It was also not open to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional directions or delete any direction, which course could be adopted only in review jurisdiction and not contempt proceedings.