Madras High Court Sentences IAS Officer To One Month Imprisonment In Contempt Case, Asks Him To Pay Compensation Out Of Salary
The Madras High Court has sentenced IAS officer Anshul Mishra to one month simple imprisonment for “civil contempt” by failing to follow an earlier order of the court in a land case. The court however suspended his sentence to allow him to file an appeal.
Justice P Velmurugan also asked the officer to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioners (an elderly duo) from his personal salary. The court asked the Government to deduct the compensation from his salary.
Emphasizing that public service was not a privilege but a trust, the court said that the citizen’s confidence on the justice delivery system rests on the assurance that court orders would be implemented promptly. The court thus remarked that repeated defiance by public officials would challenge the fundamental principles of justice that the rule of law is meant to uphold.
“The confidence of the citizens in the justice delivery system rests upon the assurance that the orders of the Courts will be implemented promptly and effectively. Public service is not a privilege but a trust reposed in the officials by the people. Public servants are answerable not only to their immediate administrative superiors but ultimately to the law and the Constitution,” the court said.
The court also noted that this was not an isolated incident and there were repeated instances where litigants where forced to approach the constitutional courts after the public authorities failed to address their grievance. The court added that in many cases, even after judicial intervention, the authorities either delayed or ignored compliance.
“This Court notes with concern that such conduct by public authorities is not an isolated incident. In numerous cases, it is seen that poor and aggrieved litigants, after approaching public authorities for redressal of genuine grievances, are forced to approach the constitutional Courts for directions. Even after judicial intervention, the concerned authorities, for reasons best known to them, either delay or altogether ignore compliance, compelling the litigants to resort to contempt proceedings for enforcement of their rights. Such repeated and consistent defiance by public officials is not only wrong but also challenges the fundamental principles of justice that the rule of law is meant to uphold,” the court noted.
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by two elderly siblings against the officer for not implementing an earlier order of the court wherein the court had directed the officer to consider their representation and suitable orders after affording a reasonable opportunity by way of personal hearing to be attended by their representative or advocate. The case involved reconveyance of the property belonging to the petitioners which was acquired for constructing a road but was not utilized.
The petitioners informed the court that the order was passed by the writ court in November 2023, which was duly communicated and a reminder was also sent in May, 2024. Even after sending a legal notice in June 2024, which was duly acknowledged, the order wasn’t complied with, prompting them to approach the court.
The respondent officer denied any willful disobedience of the court order and said that the delay was due to some administrative changes in the Department.
The court, however, found the reasons unsatisfactory and held that the disobedience was willful and wanton. The court noted that despite a representation from the petitioners after the court order, the respondent had neither acted on it within a reasonable time nor provided any response.
He court also said that being a public servant, the respondent officer was entrusted with a serious responsibility and once this public duty was cast, he was bound to discharge his duty without fail. In the present case, the court noted that even after issuance of statutory notice, there was no sincere effort to rectify the lapse.
Thus, holding that the deliberate failure amounted to willful disobedience, the court found the officer guilty of the offence under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and ordered accordingly.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. V. Subramanian Associates
Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. P. Veena Suresh, Standing Counsel for CMDA
Case Title: R Lalithambai and Another v. Anshul Mishra IAS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Case NO: Cont.P.No.2790 of 2024
