NEW HOPE GRANITES BANGALORE Vs. LOKANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We need to prefix this judgment with the observation that instances of abject disregard of judicial orders at all levels seems to have become the order of the day as far as the State and public authorities are concerned giving rise to a virtual multiplication of unnecessary post decisional litigation which has almost reached epidemic proportions. The problem is not acute. It is not chronic, it is virtually malignant. The question that is legitimately being posed in this situation is as to whether the law has any teeth left and the present situation appears to have stemmed from the impression of the authorities, that the law has not only lost its teeth but also its gums! It is in these circumstances that it has become necessary for us to deal at some length with this issue because this High Court alone as of now is unnecessarily overburdened with almost three thousand contempt proceedings, which is a virtual national record.

(2.) An impression is unfortunately current that in those of the cases where a judicial order does not specify a prescribed time-frame for implementation, that the authority can postpone it indefinitely and still canvass the plea that no breach has been committed because no deadline had been set. Secondly, an erroneous impression prevails that unless the beneficiary of the order formally procures a certified copy thereof and serves it on the authority, that there is no obligation existent to carry out the directive. The favourite explanation put forward, apart from the last one, particularly by State Departments, is that an appeal was intended and, therefore, the non-implementation is justified during the interim period. It has also become almost a ritual with public authorities, long after the institution of contempt proceedings, to report compliance with an air of confidence as though they have done something praiseworthy; coupled with the the parallel explanation that the already overburdened courts will most willingly drop the proceedings. Lastly however, the authorities are supremely confident of the fact that howsoever gross the misconduct, whatever be the harassment and torture and loss to which the citizen has been subjected and the utter wastage of precious judicial time, that everything can be wiped out with one stroke of an apology. We deem it necessary to rectify this state of affairs and to make it known both clearly and firmly that the attitude which this Court will adopt in contempt proceedings will be a virtually nonsense procedure and that the dignity of the rule of law and its efficacy will be enforced at all costs.

(3.) It would be useful at this stage, to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Advocate-General, State of Bihar v M.P. Khair Industries Ltd., .