Sometimes More Than 800 Cases Are Listed Every Day Before Judges; Parties Can’t Openly Defy Operative Directions: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court was considering a contempt application against the District Inspector of Schools regarding the non-payment of the salary of a teacher.
While holding the District Inspector of Schools guilty of contempt and highlighting the fact that around 400 to 800 cases are listed every day before every Judge, the Allahabad High Court has held that parties cannot be permitted to openly defy operative directions, as the administration of justice would descend into chaos and anarchy.
The High Court was considering a contempt application against the District Inspector of Schools regarding the non-payment of the salary of a teacher.
The Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed,“ In heavily burdened constitutional courts, like our Allahabad High Court, where around 400, 500, 600 and sometimes more than 800 cases are listed every day before every Judge, judicial proceedings may consume considerable time for disposal; sometimes years and sometime decades also. Still people all around may expect such overburdened judges to become ever-working super robots or super computers or superhuman beings? If during such pendency, parties are permitted to openly defy operative directions, the administration of justice would descend into chaos and anarchy. The law does not countenance such audacity.”
“ Courts cannot permit litigants to take pride in disobedience by proclaiming: “I have filed an application for vacation of the order; therefore, I shall not comply until it is decided.” Such an approach is nothing short of a frontal assault upon the authority of the judiciary”, it added.
Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Malviya represented the Applicant.
Factual Background
The case revolved around the non-payment of the salary of a teacher. It was alleged that an interim order had been deliberately flouted. The writ petition was filed in the year 2017 and an interim order was passed in the year 2022. An affidavit was filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur explaining the reason for non-compliance of the interim order passed by the Court, stating that a stay vacation application was filed on behalf of the State of U.P. in the writ petition, a listing application was also filed, and therefore the order had not been complied with. A request was made to defer further proceedings of the present contempt application till the outcome of the stay vacation application.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the period of four years had passed since the interim order was passed, and the contempt application had also been pending for the last four years. The Bench further found that no effort was made by the opposite parties to get the stay vacation application listed or argued. The Bench was inclined to proceed with the matter on account of non-compliance with the order passed four years ago.
The Bench stated, “A person against whom an interim order operates, cannot be permitted to arrogate unto himself the authority to decide whether he shall obey the order or not merely because he has filed an application for recall, modification, clarification, or vacation of that order. Filing of such an application does not eclipse, suspend, neutralize or render dormant the subsisting order of the Court. Unless the competent Court modifies, stays, recalls, or vacates its earlier order, the order continues to operate with full binding force. Any other proposition would strike at the heart of judicial discipline. If mere filing of an application were treated as a license to violate Court orders, every contemnor would conveniently avoid compliance by instituting repetitive applications and then taking shelter behind the pendency thereof.”
The Bench further highlighted how the celebrated dictum of Mahatma Gandhi, as expressed in his seminal work MY EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH, that “no one can insult you without your permission,” bears profound relevance even within the realm of contempt jurisdiction. “The majesty of the law stands diminished only when the Court permits its own command to be rendered ineffectual with impunity. In that sense, the continued non-enforcement of a subsisting judicial order amounts to a tacit permission for its violation, thereby attracting the very principle enunciated by Mahatma Gandhi-that insult survives not merely by the act of wrongdoer, but by the acquiescence of the authority which tolerates it”, it further stated.
Considering the facts of the case, the Bench refused to defer the proceedings of the contempt application. As per the Bench, mere filing/pendency of the stay vacation application did not amount to vacation of the interim order and justification for non-payment of salary after a period of four years. Thus, holding the opposite party guilty of committing contempt of the order, the Bench listed the case on July 8, 2026, for framing of charges.
Cause Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav v. Sri Ashok Nath Tiwari, the District Inspector of Schools (Case No.: Contempt Application (Civil) No.6468 of 2022)