It is entirely in the fitness of things that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Israr Ahmad Khan vs Amarnath Prasad & Ors in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.5/2026 in C.A. No.7023/2025 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No.6/2026 in C.A. No.7024/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 209 that was pronounced as recently as on February 24, 2026 in the exercise of its “extraordinary and inherent contempt jurisdiction” deprecated and took serious exception to the growing practice of litigants failing to comply with court orders and then filing delayed appeals challenging such orders, only to stall contempt of court proceedings initiated for their non-compliance with earlier directives. It must be laid bare that the Apex Court was dealing with a case where officers of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation had indicated that they were awaiting the outcome of a review petition to decide on whether to comply with certain court directives in a service dispute. The top court took potshots at the Federation for taking such an ambivalent approach.
By any reckoning, it stands to reason that the top court also flagged a larger trend of litigants filing appeals challenging the court orders only after contempt proceedings are initiated over their failure to comply with court directives. Most fittingly, the Apex Court deemed it fit to hold that High Courts should deal with such unscrupulous litigants with iron hands, more so when they happen to be State functionaries. No denying it!
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “After some arguments, at the outset, Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned senior counsel, sought permission to be discharged from the matter. Permission granted; the learned senior counsel is discharged from representing the alleged contemnors.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “Heard learned counsel for the parties and the alleged contemnors, who are present-in-person before the Court, pursuant to our Order dated 16.01.2026, which reads as under:
‘Issue notice.
2. List on 24.02.2026.
3. If by that date the order of which non-compliance has been alleged is not fully complied and affidavit of compliance filed, the alleged contemnors no. 1 to 4 shall remain physically present in Court.’
(emphasis supplied).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Though an Affidavit-in-Reply stands filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor No.4, but on a perusal therefrom, we find that only excuses seem to have been offered. The said Affidavit, inter alia, contends ‘…the answering respondent has taken several steps and efforts to try and comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court. However, due to exigent circumstances, compliance of the same has not taken place due to administrative hurdles and issues in implementation that have arisen.’ It goes on to state the background which led to the passing of the Order dated 20.05.2025, of which contempt is alleged herein, in Civil Appeals No.7023/2025 and 7024/2025. Further, it is averred that the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MD’) wrote a Letter dated 22.07.2025 to the concerned Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Government’) for ‘guidance in relation to compliance’ of the Order dated 22.05.2025. Be it noted, even this Letter dated 22.07.2025 was written after over 2 months of the 3 months’ time given had elapsed. The concerned Under Secretary to the Government vide Letter dated 30.07.2025 then sought certain information/documents from the MD. It is urged that the MD provided information as sought to the Government. The MD later, on 26.09.2025, sent a Letter to the Government as a reminder on the issue. On 03.10.2025, the Government wrote back to the MD asking if all legal options had been exhausted against the Order dated 20.05.2025.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 4 that, “Clearly, while time to comply with Order dated 20.05.2025 ran out on 20.08.2025 itself, the MD’s reminder Letter dated 26.09.2025 as also the Government’s Letter dated 03.10.2025 came much after. Indubitably, and prima facie, a clear case of contempt stands made out, including against individuals not party to the Order dated 20.05.2025. We shall deal with the legal implication of our finding so a little later.”
Alarmingly, the Bench points out in para 5 that, “Blissfully, the Affidavit makes no reference as to why no Miscellaneous Application was preferred in the main Civil Appeals seeking appropriate directions. Surely, if the difficulty was in implementing the Order dated 20.05.2025, instead of seeking a review, directions could have been sought for? Instead, a Review Petition [Diary No.57124/2025] was filed in October, 2025, as informed by learned counsel for the alleged contemnors. Defects therein, notified in November, 2025 are yet to be cured. As such, it is clear that there was no real intent on the part of the alleged contemnors and others in default of the Order dated 20.05.2025 to have the same either modified, clarified or reviewed. These facts speak for themselves. But then again, perhaps it is only us who are to be blamed. Giving parties an unduly long rope in the past has led us to this. Alas!”
Further, the Bench laments in para 6 stating that, “If only the story were to end there. The MD, by another Letter dated 06.10.2025, informed the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government that a Review Petition had been filed against the Order dated 20.05.2025, but ‘a proposal for approval of the creation of supernumerary post of Godown Keeper, in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20.05.2025, is being prepared and submitted separately so that in the event of a final decision on the petition not being in favor of the Federation, prompt further action can be taken.’ Lo and behold, the implementation of Order dated 20.05.2025 was sought to be and made conditional on the outcome of a Review Petition. We must unequivocally state herein that while no fetter could be placed on preferring a Review Petition, it was the duty of the alleged contemnors to first comply with the Order. Depending on the outcome of the Review Petition, further steps/adjustment could have possibly taken place. But, it was not open to the alleged contemnors to not comply with an Order of this Court on the mere filing of a Review Petition, which, at the deliberate cost of repetition, remains defective due to want of rectification by the concerned Review Petitioner.”
Astoundingly, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 disclosing that, “Incredibly, the Affidavit also states that if the Court ‘does not find merit in the review petition’, immediate steps to comply will be taken ‘as the logistical hurdles have been figured out’! Therefore, it is quite clear that, at least as on date, the alleged contemnors could very well have purged the contempt but chosen not to do so.”
As a corollary, the Bench then observes in para 8 that, “In the above circumstances, we were of the view that Charge(s) ought to be framed against the alleged contemnors as they have all but admitted to being in contempt while offering inexcusable justifications for non-compliance.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “While we have no doubt, been proponents of justice being tempered with mercy, incidents like this seriously make us question whether the ‘liberal’ jurisprudence on contempt requires a serious re-look. Such issue, having come to our attention, will definitely be gone into, in detail, in a more appropriate case.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 13 that, “At this juncture, the alleged contemnors and their learned counsel requested, in unison, that the cases be adjourned for 15 days so as to provide them a last and final opportunity to ensure that the Order dated 20.05.2025 is complied with fully, without any ifs and buts.”
Do further note, the Bench then also notes in para 14 that, “Having regard to the afore-submission, purely by way of extraordinary indulgence, basis the afore-undertaking given to this Court by the alleged contemnors-in-person of their own accord, the present Contempt Petitions (Civil) be listed on 24.03.2026 at the Top of the Board as part-heard.”
Most alarmingly, the Bench points out in para 27 that, “Delayed filing of appeals should be the exception, but in recent times, the exception has practically evolved to become the rule. Orders passed by the Courts are not complied with for a long time, and when Contempt Petitions are filed, belated appeals, with tremendous delay, are preferred.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 28 that, “The (alleged) continuing contumacious conduct of the defaulting party is sought to be justified on the mere production of a Diary/Filing/Stamp Reporting Number showing that an appeal has been preferred, so as to obtain multiple adjournments in contempt matters.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 29 that, “We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these practices. It is felt that by such modus operandi, disobedient litigants act brazenly which has the further effect of bringing down the authority and majesty of the Courts and the rule of law, interfering in the administration of justice. The same may well, in certain situations, border on criminal contempt.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 30 what constitutes the real cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The High Courts should deal with such unscrupulous litigants, moreso when they happen to be ‘State’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, or like bodies, with an iron hand. Unless the High Courts, so also this Court deal with these aspects firmly, we run the clear risk of erosion of the unflinching faith that the ordinary litigants of this country repose in the Judiciary at all levels. It is the solemn duty of all of us manning the Courts across the hierarchy to ensure that the public faith never wavers.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 31 noting that, “Registry to forthwith place Review Petition bearing Diary No.57124/20252 before the appropriate Bench, after obtaining due permission from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. A copy of this Judgement shall be placed with that Review Petition.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 32 that, “Copies of this Judgment be also circulated to the Union Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training; the Chief Secretaries to all State Governments, Union Territory Administrations and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with a direction to take note of what we have stated above, in respect of Contempt Petitions, whether pending before this Court or the High Courts, where officers stand arrayed as individuals. They are at liberty to transmit this Judgment onward as deemed fit to other officers and concerned persons.”
Sanjeev Sirohi