Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative,
the contention raised is that every contempt, whether
initiated on application of a party or suo motu by the Court,
has to be a result of wilful disobedience of the orders of
the Court. Wilful disobedience must be proved as a matter
of fact. The directions or guidelines issued by this Court for
general implementation cannot invite proceedings under
the Act, if they are not strictly adhered to. Such guidelines
may not be within the knowledge of a party and, thus, their
non-compliance may not necessarily be a wilful
disobedience of the order of the Court bringing the case of
a contemnor within the rigours of Section 12 of the Act.
Contempt proceedings can be initiated when an action is
between the parties to a lis and not where the Court issues
general directions.
5. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of
resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at
the very initial stage of the proceedings being bona fide
and preferably unconditional would normally persuade the
Court to accept such apology, if this would not leave a
serious scar on the dignity/authority of the Court and
interfere with the administration of justice under the orders
of the Court.
6. ‘Bona fide’ is an expression which has to be examined
in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in
the abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of
the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are
some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with
the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a
person has attempted to over-reach the process of Court
and has persisted with the illegal act done in wilful violation
to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to
accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the
threshold of the proceedings.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NOS. 195-196 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4318 AND 4319 OF 2012
Priya Gupta & Anr.
...Appellants
Versus
Addl. Secy. Ministry of Health &
...Respondents
Family Welfare & Ors.
Citation;(2013) 11 SCC 404
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Read original judgment here;click here
1. While disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012
titled Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., the Court
not only noticed breach of time schedule as well as various
other irregularities that were committed by the various
stakeholders, but also returned a finding as to failure of
the performance of duties and obligations by the
authorities in accordance with law as stated by this Court.
The Court noticed that the case in hand was a clear
example of calculated tampering with the schedule
specified under the regulations, and the judgments of the
Court with a clear intention to grant admission to less
meritorious candidates over candidates of higher merit.
To put it simply, it was a case of favouritism and
arbitrariness. The case in hand also demonstrates how
either way the career of the students of higher merit has
been jeopardised by the abuse and manipulation of
provided procedure. While directing initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) held as under:-
4. “We have categorically returned a finding
that all the relevant stakeholders have
failed to perform their duty/obligation in
accordance with law. Where the time
schedules have not been complied with,
and rule of merit has been defeated,
there nepotism and manipulation have
prevailed. The stands of various
authorities are at variance with each
other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is
imperative for this Court to ensure proper
implementation of judgments of this Court
and the regulations of the Medical Council
of India as well as not to overlook the
arbitrary and colourable exercise of power
by the concerned authorities/colleges.
5. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of
proceedings against the following under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the
following, to show cause why they be not
punished in accordance with law.
a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Union of India.
b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical
Education.
c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.
d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the
Selection Committee.
e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the
Selection Committee.
f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the
Selection Committee.
g. Director General, Directorate of Health
Services, Union of India.
5. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks,
on which day the matter shall be listed
before this Court. Registry shall maintain
separate file for that purpose.
6. All concerned authorities are hereby
directed to carry out the directions and
orders contained in this judgment,
particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the
judgment forthwith. The directions shall
be applicable for the academic year 2012-
2013 itself.
54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all
concerned authorities, forthwith, for strict
compliance and adherence, without demur and
default.
55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the
above directions.”
2. In furtherance to the judgment dated 8th May, 2012,
the Court initiated proceedings against the above
defaulting persons under the Act and directed issuance of
notice. Upon appearance, time was prayed for on behalf of
the contemnors to file their reply affidavits and after they
were filed, the contemnors were heard at some length by
the Court. The stand taken by the respective contemnors
is distinct and independent. However, the stand of
contemnors “C” to “F” is somewhat common, therefore, it
would be appropriate for the Court to deal with the case of
these contemnors together. The case of contemnors ‘A’
and ‘G’ is to be considered together and finally that of
contemnor ‘B’ will be dealt with separately. First and
foremost, we would deal with the case of Dr. S.L. Adile,
whose daughter Akansha Adile is the direct beneficiary of
this entire process. In the affidavit filed by Dr. Adile, it has
been averred that he was working as a Professor of
Ophthalmology in the Medical College, Raipur till 1st August,
2006 and Dean thereafter in the same college. The
Director of Medical Education, Chhatisgarh (Dr. Bhola)
retired on 31st August, 2006 and being the senior, Dr. Adile
was asked to relieve Dr. Bhola, on 8th September, 2006
temporarily. This is how he came to be appointed as the
Director of Medical Education. The findings recorded in
the order against him which includes violation of schedule,
moulding the process of selection to select his daughter
and actually providing her a seat in the Medical College,
Raipur has not been disputed. However, it is stated that
he tenders an unconditional apology to the Court for all the
acts of omission and commission mentioned in the order
dated 8th May, 2012. He prays for the mercy of the Court
on the ground that he was under suspension for last two
years i.e. since 23rd July, 2010 and has suffered already.
His daughter was also asked to pay Rs. 5 lakhs, if she was
to continue her course in terms of the order dated 8th May,
2012, and therefore, he prays for discharge.
3. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel
appearing for Dr. S.L. Adile argued in principle that the
Court may take a lenient view and discharge the notice of
contempt against the contemnor in view of his
unconditional, unqualified apology being tendered at the
very first instance. The apology tendered is bona fide and,
thus, should be accepted by the Court. Explanation to
Section 12(1) places an obligation upon the Court to
consider apology in a very objective manner and further
provides that the Court shall not reject the same merely on
the ground of it being qualified or conditional if it is made
bonafidely. It is also to be noticed that the Secretary,
Ministry of Health has specifically disputed that the letter
dated 8th August, 2006 was not issued by the Ministry and
is a manipulated one. This is the letter that has been
relied upon by Dr. Adile. Of course, subsequently the said
stand was given up by him
4. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative,
the contention raised is that every contempt, whether
initiated on application of a party or suo motu by the Court,
has to be a result of wilful disobedience of the orders of
the Court. Wilful disobedience must be proved as a matter
of fact. The directions or guidelines issued by this Court for
general implementation cannot invite proceedings under
the Act, if they are not strictly adhered to. Such guidelines
may not be within the knowledge of a party and, thus, their
non-compliance may not necessarily be a wilful
disobedience of the order of the Court bringing the case of
a contemnor within the rigours of Section 12 of the Act.
Contempt proceedings can be initiated when an action is
between the parties to a lis and not where the Court issues
general directions.
5. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of
resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at
the very initial stage of the proceedings being bona fide
and preferably unconditional would normally persuade the
Court to accept such apology, if this would not leave a
serious scar on the dignity/authority of the Court and
interfere with the administration of justice under the orders
of the Court.
6. ‘Bona fide’ is an expression which has to be examined
in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in
the abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of
the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are
some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with
the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a
person has attempted to over-reach the process of Court
and has persisted with the illegal act done in wilful violation
to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to
accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the
threshold of the proceedings. It is not necessary for us to
examine in any greater detail the factual matrix of the case
since the disobedience, manipulation of procedure and
violation of the schedule prescribed under the orders of
the Court is an admitted position. All that we have to
examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide when
examined in light of the attendant circumstances and
whether it will be in the interest of justice to accept the
same.
7. The facts which will weigh with the Court while
considering acceptance of an apology are the
contemptuous conduct, the extent to which the order of
the Court has been violated, irresponsible acts on the part
of the contemnor and the degree of interference in the
administration of justice, which thereby cause prejudice to
other parties. An apology tendered, even at the outset,
has to be bona fide and should be demonstrative of
repentance and sincere regret on the part of the
contemnor, lest the administration of justice be crudely
interfered with by a person with impunity. The basic
ingredients of the rule of law have to be enforced, whatever
be the consequence and all persons are under a
fundamental duty to maintain the rule of law. An apology
which is not bonafide and has been tendered to truncate
the process of law with the ulterior motive of escaping the
consequences of such flagrant violation of orders of the
Court and causes discernible disrespect to the course of
administration of justice, cannot be permitted. The Court
has to draw a balance between cases where tendering of
an apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to
inflict punishment on the contemnor. An attempt to
circumvent the orders of the Court is derogatory to the very
dignity of the Court and administration of justice. A person
who attempts to salvage himself by showing ignorance of
the Court’s order, of which he quite clearly had the
knowledge, would again be an attempt on his part to
circumvent the process of law. Tendering a justification
would be inconsistent with the concept of an apology. An
apology which is neither sincere nor satisfactory and is not
made at the appropriate stage may not provide sufficient
grounds to the Court for the acceptance of the same. It is
also an accepted principle that one who commits
intentional violations must also be aware of the
consequences of the same. One who tenders an
unqualified apology would normally not render justification
for the contemptuous conduct. In any case, tendering of
an apology is a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of
offence by contemnor. It is not intended to operate as a
universal panacea to frustrate the action in law, as the
fundamental principle is that rule of law and dignity of the
Court must prevail.
8. In the case of In Re Sanjeev Datta & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC
619], this Court while declining to accept an apology
tendered by the contemnor observed that any conduct that
is designed to or is suggestive of challenging the crucial
balance of power devised by the Constitution, is an attempt
to subvert the rule of law and is an invitation to anarchy.
The institution entrusted with the task of interpreting and
administering the law is the judiciary, whose view on the
subject is made legally final and binding on all till it is
changed by a higher Court or by permissible legislative
measures. Under a constitutional government, such final
authority has to vest in some institution otherwise there will
be a chaos. With these observations, the Court declined
to accept the apology where statements had been made
with a malicious attempt to cast aspersions and attribute
motives to the Court and the same were made knowingly by
the contemnor. At this stage, we may also notice another
judgment of this Court in the case of All Bengal Excise
Licensees’ Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. [(2007)
11 SCC 374], where the Court while declining to accept an
apology, punished the contemnors for disobeying the
orders of the Court. The Court noticed that the
respondents were senior officers and were expected to
know that under the constitutional scheme of the country,
the orders of the Court have to be obeyed implicitly and
that orders of this Court and of any Court cannot be trifled
with. The Court returned a finding that the officers had
12
Page 13
acted deliberately to subvert the orders of the High Court
evidently and observed :-
“41. All Respondents 1-4 are senior and
experienced officers and must be
presumed to know that under the
constitutional scheme of this country
orders of the High Court have to be
obeyed implicitly and that orders of this
Court—for that matter any court should
not be trifled with. We have already found
hereinabove that they have acted
deliberately to subvert the orders of the
High Court evidently. It is equally
necessary to erase an impression which
appears to be gaining ground that the
mantra of unconditional apology is a
complete answer to violations and
infractions of the orders of the High Court
or of this Court. We, therefore, hold them
guilty of contempt of court and do hereby
censure their conduct. Though a copy of
this order could be sent which shall form
part of the annual confidential record of
service of each of the said officers, we
refrain from doing so by taking a lenient
view of the matter considering the future
prospects of the officers. As already
stated, the officers shall not indulge in
any adventurous act and strictly obey the
orders passed by the courts of law. The
civil appeal stands allowed. Though this is
a fit case for awarding exemplary costs,
again taking a lenient view, we say no
costs.”
9. The government departments are no exception to the
consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the
Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its
disobedience and would invite action in accordance with
law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No
Court or Tribunal and for that matter any other authority
can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience
would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise
there would be confusion in the administration of law and
the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be
no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher
court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals
under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This
Court also expressed the view that it had become
necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional
ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the
credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance
litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence
14
Page 15
developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for
effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If
the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of
law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the
constitutional principle by those who are required to lay
down the law. [Ref. East India Commercial Companies Ltd.
v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors [(2008) 10 SCC 1].
10. These very principles have to be strictly adhered to by
the executive and instrumentalities of the State. It is
expected that none of these institutions should fall out of
line with the requirements of the standard of discipline in
order to maintain the dignity of institution and ensure
proper administration of justice.
11. From the above principle, it is clear that consideration
of an apology as contemplated under explanation to
Section12(1) of the Act is not a panacea to avoid action in
law universally. While considering the apology and its
15
Page 16
acceptance, the Court inter alia considers a) the conduct
of the contemnor prior and subsequent to the tendering of
apology. If the conduct is contemptuous, prejudicial and
has harmed the system and other innocent persons as a
whole, it would be a factor which would weigh against the
contemnors; and b) the stage and time when such apology
is tendered.
12. In light of the above principles, if one examines the
conduct of Dr. S.L. Adile, he is a person who cannot plead
ignorance to the directions of this Court inasmuch as he
was the officiating Director and responsible for making
admissions not only to the college in question, but to all
the medical colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. It was
expected of him to conduct the admissions strictly on merit,
transparently and in adherence to the schedule and
directions contained in the judgments of this Court. He
attempted to violate the same with impunity. He
manipulated the entire process of admission and directed
his subordinates to manage admissions of appellants,
16
Page 17
including his daughter, and on the other hand misguided
the Ministry of Health, Government of India. There was
flagrant violation of the orders of the Court which has
proved prejudicial not only to the system of admission, but
even to the deserving students who in the order of merit
were entitled to get those seats. No advertisement was
effected. There is nothing on record to show that any
other candidate had been informed of the date of
admission. At the eleventh hour on 30th September, 2006,
the last date for admission, very cleverly admission of the
two appellants was managed by him.
13. As already noticed, the violations are admitted on the
part of this contemnor. The tendering of apology by him,
though at the initial stage of the hearings, cannot be
accepted by the Court inasmuch as violation of the orders
of the Court is wilful, intentional, and prejudicial. Such
conduct, not only has the adverse effect on the process of
admissions and disturbs the faith of people in the
administration of justice, but also lowers the dignity of the
17
Page 18
Court by unambiguously conveying that orders of this Court,
its directions and prescribed procedure can be
manipulated or circumvented so as to frustrate the very
object of such orders and directions, thereby undermining
the dignity of the Court. Administration of justice is a
matter which cannot be ignored by the Court and the
acceptance of apology tendered by the contemnor would
amount to establishing a principle that such serious
violations would not entail any consequences in law. This
would, thus encourage repetition of such offences, rather
than discouraging or preventing others from committing
offences of similar nature as it would have no preventive or
deterrent effect on persons for committing such offences in
future. Thus, it is not a case where the Court should
extend mercy of discharging the accused by acceptance of
apology, as it would amount to encouraging similar
behaviour.
14. The contemnor, Dr. Adile, while heavily relying upon the
factum of his having been placed under suspension by the
18
Page 19
disciplinary authority as well as the direction to his
daughter to pay Rs.5 lacs for continuing with the medical
course to which she was admitted, has argued that the
Court should take a lenient view and accept the apology.
We are of the view that such a contention cannot be of
much advantage to the contemnor. These are not the
relevant factors for acceptance of an apology, however,
they may be of some consideration while imposing the
punishment.
15. Now, we shall proceed to discuss the legal issues
raised on behalf of the contemnor that in such cases, the
proceedings under the Act cannot be taken recourse to.
16. It is true that Section 12 of the Act contemplates
disobedience of the orders of the Court to be wilful and
further that such violation has to be of a specific order or
direction of the Court. To contend that there cannot be an
initiation of contempt proceedings where directions are of
a general nature as it would not only be impracticable, but
even impossible to regulate such orders of the Court, is an
19
Page 20
argument which does not impress the Court. As already
noticed, the Constitution has placed upon the judiciary, the
responsibility to interpret the law and ensure proper
administration of justice. In carrying out these
constitutional functions, the Courts have to ensure that
dignity of the Court, process of Court and respect for
administration of justice is maintained. Violations which are
likely to impinge upon the faith of the public in
administration of justice and the Court system must be
punished, to prevent repetition of such behaviour and the
adverse impact on public faith. With the development of
law, the Courts have issued directions and even spelt out in
their judgments, certain guidelines, which are to be
operative till proper legislations are enacted. The
directions of the Court which are to provide transparency in
action and adherence to basic law and fair play must be
enforced and obeyed by all concerned. The law declared
by this Court whether in the form of a substantive judgment
inter se a party or are directions of a general nature which
are intended to achieve the constitutional goals of equality
20
Page 21
and equal opportunity must be adhered to and there
cannot be an artificial distinction drawn in between such
class of cases. Whichever class they may belong to, a
contemnor cannot build an argument to the effect that the
disobedience is of a general direction and not of a specific
order issued inter se parties. Such distinction, if permitted,
shall be opposed to the basic rule of law.
17. The directions which have been issued in the cases
referred to in the main judgment clearly provide for
admission to medical courses in order of merit, for the
process of admission to be transparent and fair, and that
there must be strict adherence to the time schedule
specified in the judgments. The purpose of this is to
ensure that arbitrariness and discrimination do not creep
into this process, and equal opportunity is ensured to the
eligible candidates applying to the medical courses in a just
and fair manner.
18. These directions are intended to serve a greater
public purpose and are expected to be within the
21
Page 22
knowledge of all concerned persons besides the fact that
the law declared by this Court is deemed to be known to all
concerned. The violation of general directions issued by
this Court would attract the rigours of the provisions of the
Act. Whether for such violation or non-compliance, the
Court would punish a person or persons, would always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.
It is not possible to provide any straight jacket formula that
is universally applicable to all cases. All that we have to
examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide,
when examined in light of the attendant circumstances and
that it will be in the interest of justice to accept the same.
19. This Court in the case of Mohd Aslam v. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 442] observed that when we speak of the
rule of law as a characteristic of our country, no man is
above the law but that here every man, whatever be his
rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm
and amenable to jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
Respect for law and its institutions is the only assurance
22
Page 23
that can hold a pluralist nation together. One should
ensure respect for law as its breach will demolish public
faith in accepted constitutional institutions and weaken the
peoples’ confidence in the rule of law. It will destroy
respect for the rule of law and the authority of Courts and
will thus seek to place individual authority and strength of
principles above the wisdom of law.
20. The provisions of the Act do not admit any discretion
for the initiation of proceedings under the Act with
reference to an order being of general directions or a
specific order inter se the parties. The sine qua non to
initiation of proceedings under the Act is an order or
judgment or direction of a Court and its wilful disobedience.
Once these ingredients are satisfied, the machinery under
the Act can be invoked by a party or even by the Court suo
motu. If the contention raised on behalf of the contemnor
is accepted, it will have inevitable consequences of hurting
the very rule of law and, thus, the constitutional ethos. The
essence of contempt jurisprudence is to ensure obedience
23
Page 24
of orders of the Court and, thus, to maintain the rule of law.
History tells us how a State is protected by its Courts and
an independent judiciary is the cardinal pillar of the
progress of a stable government. If over-enthusiastic
executive attempts to belittle the importance of the Court
and its judgments and orders, and also lowers down its
prestige and confidence before the people, then greater is
the necessity for taking recourse to such power in the
interest and safety of the public at large. The power to
punish for contempt is inherent in the very nature and
purpose of the Court of justice. In our country, such power
is codified. It serves at once a dual purpose, namely, as an
aid to protect the dignity and authority of the Court and
also in aiding the enforcement of civil remedies. Looked at
from a wider perspective, contempt power is also a means
for ensuring participation in the judicial process and
observance of rules by such participants. Once the
essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are
satisfied, the Court would initiate an action uninfluenced by
the nature of the direction i.e. as to whether these
24
Page 25
directions were specific in a lis pending between the parties
or were of general nature or were in rem.
21. The reliance by the contemnor upon the judgment of
In Re. M.P. Dwivedi & Ors. [(1996) 4 SCC 152], does not
further the cause of the contemnor. On the contrary, it
supports the view that we are taking. In this case, despite
the judgment of this Court, the accused persons were
handcuffed and brought in the court of learned Magistrate
who was a young judicial officer. Upon initiation of
contempt proceedings, it was contended that the officer
was not aware of the directions issued by this Court.
Rejecting the plea of ignorance of law, the Court returned a
clear finding that there was default on the part of the
contemnor and disapproval of such conduct was ordered to
be placed on their personal files. However, the Court did
not punish them primarily on the ground that they were
young judicial officers and had ignored the order of the
Court. The directions of this Court in the case of Prem
Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Adminsitration [(1980) 3 SCC 526]
25
Page 26
issuing guidelines prohibiting such handcuffing itself were,
in that sense, of a general nature and this Court clearly
held that they were required to be obeyed without
exception.
22. Equally, the contemnor cannot draw any advantage
from the judgment of this Court in the case of Packraft
(India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director V.S. Mann v. U.P.F.C.
through its M.D. R.M. Sethi and Others [(1996) 1 SCC 304]
as that was a judgment on its own facts and the Court did
not state any absolute proposition of law. We may notice
that in that case, the applicant had participated in the sale
of the property which was alleged to have been sold
contrary to the guidelines issued by the Court and had not
taken any steps during that period. Since, such steps
could be corrected by adopting the procedure of judicial
review, the Court did not initiate the contempt proceedings.
The law is well settled that mere availability of another legal
proceeding does not debar invocation of the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act. Even where execution
26
Page 27
petitions are filed or an order of injunction is issued and if
during the course of the proceedings, the act or conduct of
a non-applicant may be such which would invite the
proceedings under the Act then such proceedings would
not be debarred.
23. As already noticed, contempt proceedings are
intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court
and adherence to the rule of law. The directions are
binding and must be obeyed by the parties and all
concerned stricto sensu. In fact, the directions of the
present kind are to be placed at a higher pedestal as
compared to cases where the matter is inter se between
two parties to the lis as they are intended to attain a
greater purpose and ensure adherence to rule of law in a
particular process which otherwise would be arbitrary and
violative of constitutional mandate. In the case of Asha
Sharma v. Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences
[(2012) 7 SCC 389], this Court held as under :
27
Page 28
“25. Strict adherence to the time
schedule has again been a matter of
controversy before the courts. The courts
have consistently taken the view that the
schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of
merit and all the stakeholders including
the authorities concerned should adhere
to it and should in no circumstances
permit its violation. This, in our opinion,
gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it
jeopardises the interest and future of the
students. Secondly, which is more
serious, is that such action would be ex
facie in violation of the orders of the
court, and therefore, would invite wrath of
the courts under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this
regard, we may appropriately refer to the
judgments of this Court in Priya Gupta,
State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha,
Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh,
GSF Medical and Paramedical Assn. v.
Assn. of Self Financing Technical Institutes
and Christian Medical College v. State of
Punjab.
26. The judgments of this Court
constitute the law of the land in terms of
Article 141 of the Constitution and the
regulations framed by the Medical Council
of India are statutorily having the force of
law and are binding on all the parties
concerned. Various aspects of the
admission process as of now are covered
either by the respective notifications
issued by the State Governments,
prospectus issued by the colleges and, in
any case, by the regulations framed by
the Medical Council of India. There is no
28
Page 29
reason why every act of the authorities be
not done as per the procedure
prescribed under the Rules and why due
records thereof be not maintained. This
proposition of law or this issue is no more
res integra and has been firmly stated by
this Court in its various judgments which
may usefully be referred at this stage.
(Ref.: State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani,
State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical
College & Hospital, Bharati Vidyapeeth v.
State of Maharashtra, Chowdhury Navin
Hemabhai v. State of Gujarat and Harish
Verma v. Ajay Srivastava.)”
24. In view of the above established principle, we have no
hesitation in rejecting even the other contention raised on
behalf of the contemnor. Having dealt with both the
contentions raised on behalf of the contemnor, we
conclude that the contemnor, Dr. S.L. Adile, has wilfully
violated the directions of this Court and has manipulated
the process of selection laid down by this Court so as to
gain personal advantage for admission of his daughter and
the other appellant thereby causing serious prejudice to
other candidates of higher merit. Having held him guilty of
the offence of civil contempt in terms of Section 12 of the
Act, we refrain from awarding him civil imprisonment for the
29
Page 30
reasons aforenoticed and award him a penalty of Rs.2,000/-
as fine.
Contemnors (C) to (F) : Ms. Amrita Banerjee Mitra,
former Assistant Prof. Physiology, Medical College
Jagdalpur. Chhattisgarh; Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, former
Associate Prof. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical
College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh; Dr. P.D. Agrawal, former
Associate Prof. Radiology medical College, Jagdalalpur,
Chhattisgarh and Mr. Padmakar Sasane, former
Demonstrator Biophysics in the Department of Physiology,
Medical College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh
25. The stand taken by these contemnors in their reply
affidavit is that Ms. Amrita Banerjee had taken over as
acting Dean on 1st November, 2006 and she had acted in
furtherance to the letters issued by the Director. While Dr.
Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D. Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar
Sasane have stated that they were members of the
Selection Committee which had recommended admission of
the two appellants, they also have taken up the stand that
they had acted as per the directions of the Dean. It is
further pointed out that the Dean had constituted the
Committee and required it so as to make recommendations
for admission. On behalf of Ms. Banerjee, it is stated that
30
Page 31
she had received a letter from the Director of Medical
Education Office on 30th September, 2006 that the seats
should be filled according to merit upon establishing
contact with the candidates. On 30th September, 2006
itself, she had constituted the Committee consisting of the
other three contemnors and, in fact, the Committee
conducted its entire proceeding and recommended the
names of the two candidates, i.e. Kumari Priya Gupta and
Kumari Akanksha Adile and they were granted admission on
that very day i.e. on 30th September, 2006. The same was
intimated to the Director of Medical Education Office vide a
letter of the same date. All these contemnors have relied
upon a judgment of this Court in the case of D.P. Gupta v.
Parsuram Tiwari [(2004) 13 SCC 746] to contend that if a
person acts upon the directions of his superior, he is not
liable to be punished for contempt. In the alternative, they
have also tendered unconditional apology before this
Court.
31
Page 32
26. Firstly, we must deal with the case of D.P. Gupta
(supra). In that case, the High Court had punished the
Vice-Chancellor for over-reaching the judgment of the High
Court by exercising his power to condone the break in
service for promotion to the post of Head of Department.
The High Court also punished the Registrar of the University
who was stated to have advised the Vice-Chancellor to act
accordingly. The Supreme Court, while upholding the
conviction of the Vice-Chancellor of the University noticed
that the person concerned was not the acting Registrar
who had advised the Vice-Chancellor but had merely carried
out the order of the Vice-Chancellor by issuing the
notification, which he was bound to carry out. Accordingly,
the prayer of the appellant was allowed by this Court. It is
obvious that the contemnor in that case had not done any
act or advised the Vice-Chancellor on any count
whatsoever. The Vice-Chancellor had issued an order
condoning the break in service and required the Registrar
to issue notification in furtherance thereto. In these
circumstances, the Supreme Court found that he was not
32
Page 33
guilty of violating the order of the Court as he had merely
issued notification as directed. Certainly, this case on facts
has no application to the case in hand. The Dean of the
College was expected to act in accordance with law. She
not only abdicated her responsibilities and obligations in
conducting a fair and transparent admission to the two
remaining seats but, in fact, colluded with Dr. Adile,
Director of the Health Services in ensuring manipulation of
the process leading to admission of his daughter and
deprived more meritorious students of those seats. In her
entire affidavit or in the letter, she has not averred that any
other candidate was informed or contacted on telephone in
the entire State, which means that all other meritorious
and eligible candidates were not even informed of
availability of the two seats. It was her responsibility to
ensure that the vacancy of such seats be duly intimated to
the eligible candidates, which was not done, primarily with
the intention to favour the two appellants who have been
given admission in a most arbitrary manner. It is not even
disputed before the Court that candidates, who were much
33
Page 34
higher in the order of merit than the two to whom seats
were awarded, have not got admission to the medical
course. It is also surprising that within the working hours of
the office on 30th September, 2006, the entire commotion
of awarding seats to the two candidates was completed.
The scrutinizing of the applications and documentation, the
holding of the interview and even deposit of fees by the
appellants was completed on that very day. All this could
not have happened but for complete collusion between the
Director, the Dean and the Selection Committee. It is also
not clear as to why the vacancy position was informed by
the Dean to the Director on 30th September, 2006 though
the second counseling had been held between 22nd and
23rd August, 2006. It was expected of her to inform the
vacancy position well in time. Intentionally withholding of
this information does not speak well of the functioning of
the Committee.
27. The members of the Selection Committee were to
discharge the very onerous duty of ensuring that all the
34
Page 35
eligible candidates had been informed of the vacancy
position and they were also expected to scrutinise the
certificates of eligible candidates and recommend
admission strictly in order of merit. They have not even
averred in their affidavit that vacancy position was in the
knowledge to the eligible persons. It is not only improbable
but impossible to believe that in the entire State and even
from the same town, no candidate would have come to
take admission to the medical courses, had they been
intimated of the vacancy position. The Committee has not
only failed to discharge its onerous duty but has even kept
all principles of fair selection aside and ensured selection
of the daughter of the Director. In contradistinction to D.P.
Gupta’s case (supra), none of these persons were obliged
to carry out the directions of the Director to give admission
to these two candidates. In fact, there was no such
direction. These persons were not subordinate to the
Director or even the Dean while performing the duties for
filling up the two vacancies as members of the Selection
35
Page 36
Committee. They cannot take shelter of bona fide exercise
of power in obeying orders of the superior.
28. In addition to this and for the reasons recorded in the
earlier part of the judgment, we have no hesitation in
holding that all these four persons have also violated the
orders of the Court and have circumvented the process of
selection and defeated the very object of the directions
issued by this Court. They have lowered the dignity and
authority of the Court and, thus, are liable to be punished
for violating the orders of this Court. Consequently, they
are also punished and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
and copy of this order shall be placed on their personal file.
29. Now, we will deal with the case of Mr. Keshav Desiraju,
Special Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and of Jagdish Prasad, director General, Health
Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India. Mr. Keshav Desiraju has stated in his affidavit that
he has been very serious in maintaining the time Schedule
for giving permission to new medical colleges taking
36
Page 37
admissions for MBBS/BDS courses under Section 10(a) of
the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 by 15th July of every
year. The permission was stated to be granted to the said
college on 15th July, 2006 for the academic year 2006-2007.
It is further stated that the State of Chhattisgarh has
contributed only three seats of MBBS at JLN Medical
College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and no seat was contributed
in the Government Medical College NMDS Jagdalpur towards
Central Pool quota. Thus, the question of allotting of seat
from the central pool quota did not arise. He further
affirms that they shall strictly adhere to the schedule term
provided under the judgment of the Court.
30. Dr. Jagdish Prasad in his affidavit has also stated that
the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur was given
approval on 15th July, 2006 as per Rules for the academic
year 2006-07. Admission to 15% quota was completed by
8th August, 2006 and the unfilled seats were returned to
the respective State Governments. According to this
Affidavit, Kumari Akanksha and Kumari Priya Gupta did not
37
Page 38
belong to All India quota. The Jagdalpur college was
granted permission for starting the academic procedure for
academic year 2006-07 by the Government of Chhattisgarh
on 14th August, 2006. The fake admission of the two
candidates came to be known to the Department when an
application under the Right to Information Act was filed by
one Dr. Anil Khakharia in September, 2009 upon which the
action was taken. The letter dated 8th August, 2006 issued
by the Director General’s office was fake. The admission
was cancelled vide letter dated 19th September, 2010. It is
further averred that the Directorate strictly adheres to the
schedule provided. It is also stated that no deviation has
been made from the prescribed procedure, time schedule
approved by the Supreme Court.
31. From these two affidavits, it is in fact clear that both
these contemnors are not directly responsible for violating
any order or direction of the Court. However, they are
expected to exercise proper control and supervision over
grant of recommendation, permission to give admission in
38
Page 39
the colleges and the admission process. The Director
General of Health Services, Union of India is responsible for
maintaining transparency in the process of admission to
the medical colleges. Two things are clear that they ought
to have checked that the State could not have permitted
the college to grant admission to the students on or after
August 14, 2006 as 15th of July, 2006 was the last date for
grant of recognition and permission to run the medical
college. Secondly, when the complaint was received, the
Ministry as well as the Directorate was expected to act with
greater expeditiousness and ought not to have permitted
the wrongly granted admissions to continue. In fact, the
Government or the Directorate both took no action against
the institute, even till date. There is apparent lack of
proper supervision and enforcement of the directions
issued by this Court on the part of these contemnors.
32. Having considered the entire spectrum of the matter,
we are of the considered view that the ends of justice
would be met by issuing a warning to both these
39
Page 40
contemnors and not to punish them with fine or
imprisonment. They should be more careful in discharge of
their functions and duties in accordance with the judgment
of this Court and we further direct them to ensure
circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment of Priya
Gupta’s case to all the Directors, Health Services of the
respective States, Deans of the Universities holding the
selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/BDS
courses as well as to the Dean of all the colleges.
33. In result of the above discussion, contemnor Dr. S.L.
Adile, Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D.
Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar Sasane are hereby punished
and awarded the sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The
fine should be deposited within four weeks from today. In
the event of default, they shall be liable to undergo civil
imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The notice of
contempt against them is discharged, however, subject to
the observations aforemade.
……………………………..J.
40
Page 41
[A.K. Patnaik]
……………………………..J.
[Swatanter Kumar]
New Delhi
December 13, 2012
41
Print Page
the contention raised is that every contempt, whether
initiated on application of a party or suo motu by the Court,
has to be a result of wilful disobedience of the orders of
the Court. Wilful disobedience must be proved as a matter
of fact. The directions or guidelines issued by this Court for
general implementation cannot invite proceedings under
the Act, if they are not strictly adhered to. Such guidelines
may not be within the knowledge of a party and, thus, their
non-compliance may not necessarily be a wilful
disobedience of the order of the Court bringing the case of
a contemnor within the rigours of Section 12 of the Act.
Contempt proceedings can be initiated when an action is
between the parties to a lis and not where the Court issues
general directions.
5. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of
resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at
the very initial stage of the proceedings being bona fide
and preferably unconditional would normally persuade the
Court to accept such apology, if this would not leave a
serious scar on the dignity/authority of the Court and
interfere with the administration of justice under the orders
of the Court.
6. ‘Bona fide’ is an expression which has to be examined
in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in
the abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of
the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are
some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with
the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a
person has attempted to over-reach the process of Court
and has persisted with the illegal act done in wilful violation
to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to
accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the
threshold of the proceedings.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NOS. 195-196 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4318 AND 4319 OF 2012
Priya Gupta & Anr.
...Appellants
Versus
Addl. Secy. Ministry of Health &
...Respondents
Family Welfare & Ors.
Citation;(2013) 11 SCC 404
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Read original judgment here;click here
1. While disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 4318 of 2012
titled Priya Gupta v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors., the Court
not only noticed breach of time schedule as well as various
other irregularities that were committed by the various
stakeholders, but also returned a finding as to failure of
the performance of duties and obligations by the
authorities in accordance with law as stated by this Court.
The Court noticed that the case in hand was a clear
example of calculated tampering with the schedule
specified under the regulations, and the judgments of the
Court with a clear intention to grant admission to less
meritorious candidates over candidates of higher merit.
To put it simply, it was a case of favouritism and
arbitrariness. The case in hand also demonstrates how
either way the career of the students of higher merit has
been jeopardised by the abuse and manipulation of
provided procedure. While directing initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) held as under:-
4. “We have categorically returned a finding
that all the relevant stakeholders have
failed to perform their duty/obligation in
accordance with law. Where the time
schedules have not been complied with,
and rule of merit has been defeated,
there nepotism and manipulation have
prevailed. The stands of various
authorities are at variance with each
other and none admits to fault. Thus, it is
imperative for this Court to ensure proper
implementation of judgments of this Court
and the regulations of the Medical Council
of India as well as not to overlook the
arbitrary and colourable exercise of power
by the concerned authorities/colleges.
5. Therefore, we hereby direct initiation of
proceedings against the following under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. Let notice be issued to the
following, to show cause why they be not
punished in accordance with law.
a. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare, Union of India.
b. Dr. S.L. Adile, Director, Medical
Education.
c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.
d. Dr. M.S. Banjan, Member of the
Selection Committee.
e. Dr. P.D. Agarwal, Member of the
Selection Committee.
f. Shri Padmakar Sasane, Member of the
Selection Committee.
g. Director General, Directorate of Health
Services, Union of India.
5. Notice be issued returnable in two weeks,
on which day the matter shall be listed
before this Court. Registry shall maintain
separate file for that purpose.
6. All concerned authorities are hereby
directed to carry out the directions and
orders contained in this judgment,
particularly paragraphs 30 and 31 of the
judgment forthwith. The directions shall
be applicable for the academic year 2012-
2013 itself.
54. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to all
concerned authorities, forthwith, for strict
compliance and adherence, without demur and
default.
55. Both the appeals are disposed of with the
above directions.”
2. In furtherance to the judgment dated 8th May, 2012,
the Court initiated proceedings against the above
defaulting persons under the Act and directed issuance of
notice. Upon appearance, time was prayed for on behalf of
the contemnors to file their reply affidavits and after they
were filed, the contemnors were heard at some length by
the Court. The stand taken by the respective contemnors
is distinct and independent. However, the stand of
contemnors “C” to “F” is somewhat common, therefore, it
would be appropriate for the Court to deal with the case of
these contemnors together. The case of contemnors ‘A’
and ‘G’ is to be considered together and finally that of
contemnor ‘B’ will be dealt with separately. First and
foremost, we would deal with the case of Dr. S.L. Adile,
whose daughter Akansha Adile is the direct beneficiary of
this entire process. In the affidavit filed by Dr. Adile, it has
been averred that he was working as a Professor of
Ophthalmology in the Medical College, Raipur till 1st August,
2006 and Dean thereafter in the same college. The
Director of Medical Education, Chhatisgarh (Dr. Bhola)
retired on 31st August, 2006 and being the senior, Dr. Adile
was asked to relieve Dr. Bhola, on 8th September, 2006
temporarily. This is how he came to be appointed as the
Director of Medical Education. The findings recorded in
the order against him which includes violation of schedule,
moulding the process of selection to select his daughter
and actually providing her a seat in the Medical College,
Raipur has not been disputed. However, it is stated that
he tenders an unconditional apology to the Court for all the
acts of omission and commission mentioned in the order
dated 8th May, 2012. He prays for the mercy of the Court
on the ground that he was under suspension for last two
years i.e. since 23rd July, 2010 and has suffered already.
His daughter was also asked to pay Rs. 5 lakhs, if she was
to continue her course in terms of the order dated 8th May,
2012, and therefore, he prays for discharge.
3. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel
appearing for Dr. S.L. Adile argued in principle that the
Court may take a lenient view and discharge the notice of
contempt against the contemnor in view of his
unconditional, unqualified apology being tendered at the
very first instance. The apology tendered is bona fide and,
thus, should be accepted by the Court. Explanation to
Section 12(1) places an obligation upon the Court to
consider apology in a very objective manner and further
provides that the Court shall not reject the same merely on
the ground of it being qualified or conditional if it is made
bonafidely. It is also to be noticed that the Secretary,
Ministry of Health has specifically disputed that the letter
dated 8th August, 2006 was not issued by the Ministry and
is a manipulated one. This is the letter that has been
relied upon by Dr. Adile. Of course, subsequently the said
stand was given up by him
4. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative,
the contention raised is that every contempt, whether
initiated on application of a party or suo motu by the Court,
has to be a result of wilful disobedience of the orders of
the Court. Wilful disobedience must be proved as a matter
of fact. The directions or guidelines issued by this Court for
general implementation cannot invite proceedings under
the Act, if they are not strictly adhered to. Such guidelines
may not be within the knowledge of a party and, thus, their
non-compliance may not necessarily be a wilful
disobedience of the order of the Court bringing the case of
a contemnor within the rigours of Section 12 of the Act.
Contempt proceedings can be initiated when an action is
between the parties to a lis and not where the Court issues
general directions.
5. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of
resolving contempt proceedings. An apology tendered at
the very initial stage of the proceedings being bona fide
and preferably unconditional would normally persuade the
Court to accept such apology, if this would not leave a
serious scar on the dignity/authority of the Court and
interfere with the administration of justice under the orders
of the Court.
6. ‘Bona fide’ is an expression which has to be examined
in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in
the abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of
the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are
some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with
the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a
person has attempted to over-reach the process of Court
and has persisted with the illegal act done in wilful violation
to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to
accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the
threshold of the proceedings. It is not necessary for us to
examine in any greater detail the factual matrix of the case
since the disobedience, manipulation of procedure and
violation of the schedule prescribed under the orders of
the Court is an admitted position. All that we have to
examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide when
examined in light of the attendant circumstances and
whether it will be in the interest of justice to accept the
same.
7. The facts which will weigh with the Court while
considering acceptance of an apology are the
contemptuous conduct, the extent to which the order of
the Court has been violated, irresponsible acts on the part
of the contemnor and the degree of interference in the
administration of justice, which thereby cause prejudice to
other parties. An apology tendered, even at the outset,
has to be bona fide and should be demonstrative of
repentance and sincere regret on the part of the
contemnor, lest the administration of justice be crudely
interfered with by a person with impunity. The basic
ingredients of the rule of law have to be enforced, whatever
be the consequence and all persons are under a
fundamental duty to maintain the rule of law. An apology
which is not bonafide and has been tendered to truncate
the process of law with the ulterior motive of escaping the
consequences of such flagrant violation of orders of the
Court and causes discernible disrespect to the course of
administration of justice, cannot be permitted. The Court
has to draw a balance between cases where tendering of
an apology is sufficient, and cases where it is necessary to
inflict punishment on the contemnor. An attempt to
circumvent the orders of the Court is derogatory to the very
dignity of the Court and administration of justice. A person
who attempts to salvage himself by showing ignorance of
the Court’s order, of which he quite clearly had the
knowledge, would again be an attempt on his part to
circumvent the process of law. Tendering a justification
would be inconsistent with the concept of an apology. An
apology which is neither sincere nor satisfactory and is not
made at the appropriate stage may not provide sufficient
grounds to the Court for the acceptance of the same. It is
also an accepted principle that one who commits
intentional violations must also be aware of the
consequences of the same. One who tenders an
unqualified apology would normally not render justification
for the contemptuous conduct. In any case, tendering of
an apology is a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of
offence by contemnor. It is not intended to operate as a
universal panacea to frustrate the action in law, as the
fundamental principle is that rule of law and dignity of the
Court must prevail.
8. In the case of In Re Sanjeev Datta & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC
619], this Court while declining to accept an apology
tendered by the contemnor observed that any conduct that
is designed to or is suggestive of challenging the crucial
balance of power devised by the Constitution, is an attempt
to subvert the rule of law and is an invitation to anarchy.
The institution entrusted with the task of interpreting and
administering the law is the judiciary, whose view on the
subject is made legally final and binding on all till it is
changed by a higher Court or by permissible legislative
measures. Under a constitutional government, such final
authority has to vest in some institution otherwise there will
be a chaos. With these observations, the Court declined
to accept the apology where statements had been made
with a malicious attempt to cast aspersions and attribute
motives to the Court and the same were made knowingly by
the contemnor. At this stage, we may also notice another
judgment of this Court in the case of All Bengal Excise
Licensees’ Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. [(2007)
11 SCC 374], where the Court while declining to accept an
apology, punished the contemnors for disobeying the
orders of the Court. The Court noticed that the
respondents were senior officers and were expected to
know that under the constitutional scheme of the country,
the orders of the Court have to be obeyed implicitly and
that orders of this Court and of any Court cannot be trifled
with. The Court returned a finding that the officers had
12
Page 13
acted deliberately to subvert the orders of the High Court
evidently and observed :-
“41. All Respondents 1-4 are senior and
experienced officers and must be
presumed to know that under the
constitutional scheme of this country
orders of the High Court have to be
obeyed implicitly and that orders of this
Court—for that matter any court should
not be trifled with. We have already found
hereinabove that they have acted
deliberately to subvert the orders of the
High Court evidently. It is equally
necessary to erase an impression which
appears to be gaining ground that the
mantra of unconditional apology is a
complete answer to violations and
infractions of the orders of the High Court
or of this Court. We, therefore, hold them
guilty of contempt of court and do hereby
censure their conduct. Though a copy of
this order could be sent which shall form
part of the annual confidential record of
service of each of the said officers, we
refrain from doing so by taking a lenient
view of the matter considering the future
prospects of the officers. As already
stated, the officers shall not indulge in
any adventurous act and strictly obey the
orders passed by the courts of law. The
civil appeal stands allowed. Though this is
a fit case for awarding exemplary costs,
again taking a lenient view, we say no
costs.”
9. The government departments are no exception to the
consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the
Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its
disobedience and would invite action in accordance with
law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the
land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No
Court or Tribunal and for that matter any other authority
can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience
would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise
there would be confusion in the administration of law and
the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be
no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher
court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals
under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This
Court also expressed the view that it had become
necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional
ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the
credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance
litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and
certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence
14
Page 15
developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for
effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If
the Courts command others to act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of
law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the
constitutional principle by those who are required to lay
down the law. [Ref. East India Commercial Companies Ltd.
v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official
Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors [(2008) 10 SCC 1].
10. These very principles have to be strictly adhered to by
the executive and instrumentalities of the State. It is
expected that none of these institutions should fall out of
line with the requirements of the standard of discipline in
order to maintain the dignity of institution and ensure
proper administration of justice.
11. From the above principle, it is clear that consideration
of an apology as contemplated under explanation to
Section12(1) of the Act is not a panacea to avoid action in
law universally. While considering the apology and its
15
Page 16
acceptance, the Court inter alia considers a) the conduct
of the contemnor prior and subsequent to the tendering of
apology. If the conduct is contemptuous, prejudicial and
has harmed the system and other innocent persons as a
whole, it would be a factor which would weigh against the
contemnors; and b) the stage and time when such apology
is tendered.
12. In light of the above principles, if one examines the
conduct of Dr. S.L. Adile, he is a person who cannot plead
ignorance to the directions of this Court inasmuch as he
was the officiating Director and responsible for making
admissions not only to the college in question, but to all
the medical colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh. It was
expected of him to conduct the admissions strictly on merit,
transparently and in adherence to the schedule and
directions contained in the judgments of this Court. He
attempted to violate the same with impunity. He
manipulated the entire process of admission and directed
his subordinates to manage admissions of appellants,
16
Page 17
including his daughter, and on the other hand misguided
the Ministry of Health, Government of India. There was
flagrant violation of the orders of the Court which has
proved prejudicial not only to the system of admission, but
even to the deserving students who in the order of merit
were entitled to get those seats. No advertisement was
effected. There is nothing on record to show that any
other candidate had been informed of the date of
admission. At the eleventh hour on 30th September, 2006,
the last date for admission, very cleverly admission of the
two appellants was managed by him.
13. As already noticed, the violations are admitted on the
part of this contemnor. The tendering of apology by him,
though at the initial stage of the hearings, cannot be
accepted by the Court inasmuch as violation of the orders
of the Court is wilful, intentional, and prejudicial. Such
conduct, not only has the adverse effect on the process of
admissions and disturbs the faith of people in the
administration of justice, but also lowers the dignity of the
17
Page 18
Court by unambiguously conveying that orders of this Court,
its directions and prescribed procedure can be
manipulated or circumvented so as to frustrate the very
object of such orders and directions, thereby undermining
the dignity of the Court. Administration of justice is a
matter which cannot be ignored by the Court and the
acceptance of apology tendered by the contemnor would
amount to establishing a principle that such serious
violations would not entail any consequences in law. This
would, thus encourage repetition of such offences, rather
than discouraging or preventing others from committing
offences of similar nature as it would have no preventive or
deterrent effect on persons for committing such offences in
future. Thus, it is not a case where the Court should
extend mercy of discharging the accused by acceptance of
apology, as it would amount to encouraging similar
behaviour.
14. The contemnor, Dr. Adile, while heavily relying upon the
factum of his having been placed under suspension by the
18
Page 19
disciplinary authority as well as the direction to his
daughter to pay Rs.5 lacs for continuing with the medical
course to which she was admitted, has argued that the
Court should take a lenient view and accept the apology.
We are of the view that such a contention cannot be of
much advantage to the contemnor. These are not the
relevant factors for acceptance of an apology, however,
they may be of some consideration while imposing the
punishment.
15. Now, we shall proceed to discuss the legal issues
raised on behalf of the contemnor that in such cases, the
proceedings under the Act cannot be taken recourse to.
16. It is true that Section 12 of the Act contemplates
disobedience of the orders of the Court to be wilful and
further that such violation has to be of a specific order or
direction of the Court. To contend that there cannot be an
initiation of contempt proceedings where directions are of
a general nature as it would not only be impracticable, but
even impossible to regulate such orders of the Court, is an
19
Page 20
argument which does not impress the Court. As already
noticed, the Constitution has placed upon the judiciary, the
responsibility to interpret the law and ensure proper
administration of justice. In carrying out these
constitutional functions, the Courts have to ensure that
dignity of the Court, process of Court and respect for
administration of justice is maintained. Violations which are
likely to impinge upon the faith of the public in
administration of justice and the Court system must be
punished, to prevent repetition of such behaviour and the
adverse impact on public faith. With the development of
law, the Courts have issued directions and even spelt out in
their judgments, certain guidelines, which are to be
operative till proper legislations are enacted. The
directions of the Court which are to provide transparency in
action and adherence to basic law and fair play must be
enforced and obeyed by all concerned. The law declared
by this Court whether in the form of a substantive judgment
inter se a party or are directions of a general nature which
are intended to achieve the constitutional goals of equality
20
Page 21
and equal opportunity must be adhered to and there
cannot be an artificial distinction drawn in between such
class of cases. Whichever class they may belong to, a
contemnor cannot build an argument to the effect that the
disobedience is of a general direction and not of a specific
order issued inter se parties. Such distinction, if permitted,
shall be opposed to the basic rule of law.
17. The directions which have been issued in the cases
referred to in the main judgment clearly provide for
admission to medical courses in order of merit, for the
process of admission to be transparent and fair, and that
there must be strict adherence to the time schedule
specified in the judgments. The purpose of this is to
ensure that arbitrariness and discrimination do not creep
into this process, and equal opportunity is ensured to the
eligible candidates applying to the medical courses in a just
and fair manner.
18. These directions are intended to serve a greater
public purpose and are expected to be within the
21
Page 22
knowledge of all concerned persons besides the fact that
the law declared by this Court is deemed to be known to all
concerned. The violation of general directions issued by
this Court would attract the rigours of the provisions of the
Act. Whether for such violation or non-compliance, the
Court would punish a person or persons, would always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case.
It is not possible to provide any straight jacket formula that
is universally applicable to all cases. All that we have to
examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide,
when examined in light of the attendant circumstances and
that it will be in the interest of justice to accept the same.
19. This Court in the case of Mohd Aslam v. Union of India
[(1994) 6 SCC 442] observed that when we speak of the
rule of law as a characteristic of our country, no man is
above the law but that here every man, whatever be his
rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm
and amenable to jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
Respect for law and its institutions is the only assurance
22
Page 23
that can hold a pluralist nation together. One should
ensure respect for law as its breach will demolish public
faith in accepted constitutional institutions and weaken the
peoples’ confidence in the rule of law. It will destroy
respect for the rule of law and the authority of Courts and
will thus seek to place individual authority and strength of
principles above the wisdom of law.
20. The provisions of the Act do not admit any discretion
for the initiation of proceedings under the Act with
reference to an order being of general directions or a
specific order inter se the parties. The sine qua non to
initiation of proceedings under the Act is an order or
judgment or direction of a Court and its wilful disobedience.
Once these ingredients are satisfied, the machinery under
the Act can be invoked by a party or even by the Court suo
motu. If the contention raised on behalf of the contemnor
is accepted, it will have inevitable consequences of hurting
the very rule of law and, thus, the constitutional ethos. The
essence of contempt jurisprudence is to ensure obedience
23
Page 24
of orders of the Court and, thus, to maintain the rule of law.
History tells us how a State is protected by its Courts and
an independent judiciary is the cardinal pillar of the
progress of a stable government. If over-enthusiastic
executive attempts to belittle the importance of the Court
and its judgments and orders, and also lowers down its
prestige and confidence before the people, then greater is
the necessity for taking recourse to such power in the
interest and safety of the public at large. The power to
punish for contempt is inherent in the very nature and
purpose of the Court of justice. In our country, such power
is codified. It serves at once a dual purpose, namely, as an
aid to protect the dignity and authority of the Court and
also in aiding the enforcement of civil remedies. Looked at
from a wider perspective, contempt power is also a means
for ensuring participation in the judicial process and
observance of rules by such participants. Once the
essentials for initiation of contempt proceedings are
satisfied, the Court would initiate an action uninfluenced by
the nature of the direction i.e. as to whether these
24
Page 25
directions were specific in a lis pending between the parties
or were of general nature or were in rem.
21. The reliance by the contemnor upon the judgment of
In Re. M.P. Dwivedi & Ors. [(1996) 4 SCC 152], does not
further the cause of the contemnor. On the contrary, it
supports the view that we are taking. In this case, despite
the judgment of this Court, the accused persons were
handcuffed and brought in the court of learned Magistrate
who was a young judicial officer. Upon initiation of
contempt proceedings, it was contended that the officer
was not aware of the directions issued by this Court.
Rejecting the plea of ignorance of law, the Court returned a
clear finding that there was default on the part of the
contemnor and disapproval of such conduct was ordered to
be placed on their personal files. However, the Court did
not punish them primarily on the ground that they were
young judicial officers and had ignored the order of the
Court. The directions of this Court in the case of Prem
Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Adminsitration [(1980) 3 SCC 526]
25
Page 26
issuing guidelines prohibiting such handcuffing itself were,
in that sense, of a general nature and this Court clearly
held that they were required to be obeyed without
exception.
22. Equally, the contemnor cannot draw any advantage
from the judgment of this Court in the case of Packraft
(India) Pvt. Ltd. through its Director V.S. Mann v. U.P.F.C.
through its M.D. R.M. Sethi and Others [(1996) 1 SCC 304]
as that was a judgment on its own facts and the Court did
not state any absolute proposition of law. We may notice
that in that case, the applicant had participated in the sale
of the property which was alleged to have been sold
contrary to the guidelines issued by the Court and had not
taken any steps during that period. Since, such steps
could be corrected by adopting the procedure of judicial
review, the Court did not initiate the contempt proceedings.
The law is well settled that mere availability of another legal
proceeding does not debar invocation of the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act. Even where execution
26
Page 27
petitions are filed or an order of injunction is issued and if
during the course of the proceedings, the act or conduct of
a non-applicant may be such which would invite the
proceedings under the Act then such proceedings would
not be debarred.
23. As already noticed, contempt proceedings are
intended to ensure compliance of the orders of the Court
and adherence to the rule of law. The directions are
binding and must be obeyed by the parties and all
concerned stricto sensu. In fact, the directions of the
present kind are to be placed at a higher pedestal as
compared to cases where the matter is inter se between
two parties to the lis as they are intended to attain a
greater purpose and ensure adherence to rule of law in a
particular process which otherwise would be arbitrary and
violative of constitutional mandate. In the case of Asha
Sharma v. Pt B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences
[(2012) 7 SCC 389], this Court held as under :
27
Page 28
“25. Strict adherence to the time
schedule has again been a matter of
controversy before the courts. The courts
have consistently taken the view that the
schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of
merit and all the stakeholders including
the authorities concerned should adhere
to it and should in no circumstances
permit its violation. This, in our opinion,
gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it
jeopardises the interest and future of the
students. Secondly, which is more
serious, is that such action would be ex
facie in violation of the orders of the
court, and therefore, would invite wrath of
the courts under the provisions of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this
regard, we may appropriately refer to the
judgments of this Court in Priya Gupta,
State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha,
Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh,
GSF Medical and Paramedical Assn. v.
Assn. of Self Financing Technical Institutes
and Christian Medical College v. State of
Punjab.
26. The judgments of this Court
constitute the law of the land in terms of
Article 141 of the Constitution and the
regulations framed by the Medical Council
of India are statutorily having the force of
law and are binding on all the parties
concerned. Various aspects of the
admission process as of now are covered
either by the respective notifications
issued by the State Governments,
prospectus issued by the colleges and, in
any case, by the regulations framed by
the Medical Council of India. There is no
28
Page 29
reason why every act of the authorities be
not done as per the procedure
prescribed under the Rules and why due
records thereof be not maintained. This
proposition of law or this issue is no more
res integra and has been firmly stated by
this Court in its various judgments which
may usefully be referred at this stage.
(Ref.: State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani,
State of Punjab v. Dayanand Medical
College & Hospital, Bharati Vidyapeeth v.
State of Maharashtra, Chowdhury Navin
Hemabhai v. State of Gujarat and Harish
Verma v. Ajay Srivastava.)”
24. In view of the above established principle, we have no
hesitation in rejecting even the other contention raised on
behalf of the contemnor. Having dealt with both the
contentions raised on behalf of the contemnor, we
conclude that the contemnor, Dr. S.L. Adile, has wilfully
violated the directions of this Court and has manipulated
the process of selection laid down by this Court so as to
gain personal advantage for admission of his daughter and
the other appellant thereby causing serious prejudice to
other candidates of higher merit. Having held him guilty of
the offence of civil contempt in terms of Section 12 of the
Act, we refrain from awarding him civil imprisonment for the
29
Page 30
reasons aforenoticed and award him a penalty of Rs.2,000/-
as fine.
Contemnors (C) to (F) : Ms. Amrita Banerjee Mitra,
former Assistant Prof. Physiology, Medical College
Jagdalpur. Chhattisgarh; Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, former
Associate Prof. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical
College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh; Dr. P.D. Agrawal, former
Associate Prof. Radiology medical College, Jagdalalpur,
Chhattisgarh and Mr. Padmakar Sasane, former
Demonstrator Biophysics in the Department of Physiology,
Medical College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh
25. The stand taken by these contemnors in their reply
affidavit is that Ms. Amrita Banerjee had taken over as
acting Dean on 1st November, 2006 and she had acted in
furtherance to the letters issued by the Director. While Dr.
Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D. Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar
Sasane have stated that they were members of the
Selection Committee which had recommended admission of
the two appellants, they also have taken up the stand that
they had acted as per the directions of the Dean. It is
further pointed out that the Dean had constituted the
Committee and required it so as to make recommendations
for admission. On behalf of Ms. Banerjee, it is stated that
30
Page 31
she had received a letter from the Director of Medical
Education Office on 30th September, 2006 that the seats
should be filled according to merit upon establishing
contact with the candidates. On 30th September, 2006
itself, she had constituted the Committee consisting of the
other three contemnors and, in fact, the Committee
conducted its entire proceeding and recommended the
names of the two candidates, i.e. Kumari Priya Gupta and
Kumari Akanksha Adile and they were granted admission on
that very day i.e. on 30th September, 2006. The same was
intimated to the Director of Medical Education Office vide a
letter of the same date. All these contemnors have relied
upon a judgment of this Court in the case of D.P. Gupta v.
Parsuram Tiwari [(2004) 13 SCC 746] to contend that if a
person acts upon the directions of his superior, he is not
liable to be punished for contempt. In the alternative, they
have also tendered unconditional apology before this
Court.
31
Page 32
26. Firstly, we must deal with the case of D.P. Gupta
(supra). In that case, the High Court had punished the
Vice-Chancellor for over-reaching the judgment of the High
Court by exercising his power to condone the break in
service for promotion to the post of Head of Department.
The High Court also punished the Registrar of the University
who was stated to have advised the Vice-Chancellor to act
accordingly. The Supreme Court, while upholding the
conviction of the Vice-Chancellor of the University noticed
that the person concerned was not the acting Registrar
who had advised the Vice-Chancellor but had merely carried
out the order of the Vice-Chancellor by issuing the
notification, which he was bound to carry out. Accordingly,
the prayer of the appellant was allowed by this Court. It is
obvious that the contemnor in that case had not done any
act or advised the Vice-Chancellor on any count
whatsoever. The Vice-Chancellor had issued an order
condoning the break in service and required the Registrar
to issue notification in furtherance thereto. In these
circumstances, the Supreme Court found that he was not
32
Page 33
guilty of violating the order of the Court as he had merely
issued notification as directed. Certainly, this case on facts
has no application to the case in hand. The Dean of the
College was expected to act in accordance with law. She
not only abdicated her responsibilities and obligations in
conducting a fair and transparent admission to the two
remaining seats but, in fact, colluded with Dr. Adile,
Director of the Health Services in ensuring manipulation of
the process leading to admission of his daughter and
deprived more meritorious students of those seats. In her
entire affidavit or in the letter, she has not averred that any
other candidate was informed or contacted on telephone in
the entire State, which means that all other meritorious
and eligible candidates were not even informed of
availability of the two seats. It was her responsibility to
ensure that the vacancy of such seats be duly intimated to
the eligible candidates, which was not done, primarily with
the intention to favour the two appellants who have been
given admission in a most arbitrary manner. It is not even
disputed before the Court that candidates, who were much
33
Page 34
higher in the order of merit than the two to whom seats
were awarded, have not got admission to the medical
course. It is also surprising that within the working hours of
the office on 30th September, 2006, the entire commotion
of awarding seats to the two candidates was completed.
The scrutinizing of the applications and documentation, the
holding of the interview and even deposit of fees by the
appellants was completed on that very day. All this could
not have happened but for complete collusion between the
Director, the Dean and the Selection Committee. It is also
not clear as to why the vacancy position was informed by
the Dean to the Director on 30th September, 2006 though
the second counseling had been held between 22nd and
23rd August, 2006. It was expected of her to inform the
vacancy position well in time. Intentionally withholding of
this information does not speak well of the functioning of
the Committee.
27. The members of the Selection Committee were to
discharge the very onerous duty of ensuring that all the
34
Page 35
eligible candidates had been informed of the vacancy
position and they were also expected to scrutinise the
certificates of eligible candidates and recommend
admission strictly in order of merit. They have not even
averred in their affidavit that vacancy position was in the
knowledge to the eligible persons. It is not only improbable
but impossible to believe that in the entire State and even
from the same town, no candidate would have come to
take admission to the medical courses, had they been
intimated of the vacancy position. The Committee has not
only failed to discharge its onerous duty but has even kept
all principles of fair selection aside and ensured selection
of the daughter of the Director. In contradistinction to D.P.
Gupta’s case (supra), none of these persons were obliged
to carry out the directions of the Director to give admission
to these two candidates. In fact, there was no such
direction. These persons were not subordinate to the
Director or even the Dean while performing the duties for
filling up the two vacancies as members of the Selection
35
Page 36
Committee. They cannot take shelter of bona fide exercise
of power in obeying orders of the superior.
28. In addition to this and for the reasons recorded in the
earlier part of the judgment, we have no hesitation in
holding that all these four persons have also violated the
orders of the Court and have circumvented the process of
selection and defeated the very object of the directions
issued by this Court. They have lowered the dignity and
authority of the Court and, thus, are liable to be punished
for violating the orders of this Court. Consequently, they
are also punished and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
and copy of this order shall be placed on their personal file.
29. Now, we will deal with the case of Mr. Keshav Desiraju,
Special Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and of Jagdish Prasad, director General, Health
Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India. Mr. Keshav Desiraju has stated in his affidavit that
he has been very serious in maintaining the time Schedule
for giving permission to new medical colleges taking
36
Page 37
admissions for MBBS/BDS courses under Section 10(a) of
the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 by 15th July of every
year. The permission was stated to be granted to the said
college on 15th July, 2006 for the academic year 2006-2007.
It is further stated that the State of Chhattisgarh has
contributed only three seats of MBBS at JLN Medical
College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and no seat was contributed
in the Government Medical College NMDS Jagdalpur towards
Central Pool quota. Thus, the question of allotting of seat
from the central pool quota did not arise. He further
affirms that they shall strictly adhere to the schedule term
provided under the judgment of the Court.
30. Dr. Jagdish Prasad in his affidavit has also stated that
the Government Medical College, Jagdalpur was given
approval on 15th July, 2006 as per Rules for the academic
year 2006-07. Admission to 15% quota was completed by
8th August, 2006 and the unfilled seats were returned to
the respective State Governments. According to this
Affidavit, Kumari Akanksha and Kumari Priya Gupta did not
37
Page 38
belong to All India quota. The Jagdalpur college was
granted permission for starting the academic procedure for
academic year 2006-07 by the Government of Chhattisgarh
on 14th August, 2006. The fake admission of the two
candidates came to be known to the Department when an
application under the Right to Information Act was filed by
one Dr. Anil Khakharia in September, 2009 upon which the
action was taken. The letter dated 8th August, 2006 issued
by the Director General’s office was fake. The admission
was cancelled vide letter dated 19th September, 2010. It is
further averred that the Directorate strictly adheres to the
schedule provided. It is also stated that no deviation has
been made from the prescribed procedure, time schedule
approved by the Supreme Court.
31. From these two affidavits, it is in fact clear that both
these contemnors are not directly responsible for violating
any order or direction of the Court. However, they are
expected to exercise proper control and supervision over
grant of recommendation, permission to give admission in
38
Page 39
the colleges and the admission process. The Director
General of Health Services, Union of India is responsible for
maintaining transparency in the process of admission to
the medical colleges. Two things are clear that they ought
to have checked that the State could not have permitted
the college to grant admission to the students on or after
August 14, 2006 as 15th of July, 2006 was the last date for
grant of recognition and permission to run the medical
college. Secondly, when the complaint was received, the
Ministry as well as the Directorate was expected to act with
greater expeditiousness and ought not to have permitted
the wrongly granted admissions to continue. In fact, the
Government or the Directorate both took no action against
the institute, even till date. There is apparent lack of
proper supervision and enforcement of the directions
issued by this Court on the part of these contemnors.
32. Having considered the entire spectrum of the matter,
we are of the considered view that the ends of justice
would be met by issuing a warning to both these
39
Page 40
contemnors and not to punish them with fine or
imprisonment. They should be more careful in discharge of
their functions and duties in accordance with the judgment
of this Court and we further direct them to ensure
circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment of Priya
Gupta’s case to all the Directors, Health Services of the
respective States, Deans of the Universities holding the
selection/examination or admission process for MBBS/BDS
courses as well as to the Dean of all the colleges.
33. In result of the above discussion, contemnor Dr. S.L.
Adile, Amrita Banerjee, Dr. Sanjivani Wanjari, Dr. P.D.
Agrawal and Mr. Padmakar Sasane are hereby punished
and awarded the sentence of fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The
fine should be deposited within four weeks from today. In
the event of default, they shall be liable to undergo civil
imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The notice of
contempt against them is discharged, however, subject to
the observations aforemade.
……………………………..J.
40
Page 41
[A.K. Patnaik]
……………………………..J.
[Swatanter Kumar]
New Delhi
December 13, 2012
41
No comments:
Post a Comment