Every Person Or Authority Is Duty Bound To Respect & Comply With Court Orders
The Supreme Court has held that regardless of rank, every person or authority is duty-bound to respect and comply with the orders of the Constitutional Court or any Court.
The Court upheld the Appellant’s conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for demolishing home dwellers’ structures and throwing them on the road with their belongings despite the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s specific warnings, but modified the sentence. The Appellant, earlier sentenced to imprisonment by the High Court, was shown a “lenient view” by the Supreme Court, which ordered a reduction of one level in rank.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “We hasten to add that though we are taking a lenient view, it is necessary for this Court to send a clear message that no one, howsoever high they may be, they are not above the law…When a Constitutional Court or for that matter, any court issues any direction, every person or authority regardless of rank, is duty bound to respect and comply with that order. Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.”
Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka represented the Appellant.
Brief Facts
The High Court had directed the Appellant to consider the representations of the home dwellers and ordered that the authorities not disturb their possession of the land. Despite these Orders, the Appellant, then working as a Tehsildar, allegedly removed structures from the land. This led to contempt petitions being filed before the High Court.
The Single Bench of the High Court found the Appellant guilty of deliberately and wilfully disobeying the Court’s Orders and sentenced him to two months of simple imprisonment and a fine. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appellant’s Appeals, affirming the Single Bench’s Judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “We are of the view that the appellant ought to have considered the consequences before demolishing the structures of the home dwellers and throwing them on the road along with their belongings and that too despite of the specific warnings given to him by the High Court in its order dated 11th December 2013.”
“The actions of the appellant were inhumane. If the appellant expects this Court to take a humanitarian approach, such conduct was not expected from him,” the Bench remarked.
The Court emphasised, “We could have taken a serious view of the matter. However, we are reminded of a well-established principle that the majesty of law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving…While we are of the considered view that the appellant does not merit any leniency on account of his adamant and callous conduct, we find that his children and family should not suffer as a consequence of his actions…In that view of the matter, we are inclined to confirm the conviction of the appellant, however, we are inclined to take a lenient view with respect to the sentence to be imposed on the appellant.”
“In that view of the matter, we find that the ends of justice would be subserved if the conviction of the appellant is affirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the High Court is modified…We find that in order to send across the right message, the conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 be confirmed, however, insofar as the sentence is concerned, the appellant shall suffer a reduction of one level in rank in the hierarchy of his service and shall also be liable to pay a heavy fine,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Insofar as the sentence is concerned, we direct the State of Andhra Pradesh to revert the appellant to the post of Tehsildar. His seniority in the cadre of Tehsildar for further promotional avenues shall be considered only from 31st October 2023.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 678)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka; AOR Anu Gupta; Advocates Avnish Dave and Prakhar Sharma
