Even Negligence Can Constitute Contempt; Belated Apology Not A Defence But Evidence Of Genuine Contrition: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Court held that disobedience of court orders, even if arising from negligence or carelessness, may amount to contempt, and that an apology tendered at the stage of impending punishment lacks bona fides and cannot absolve the contemnor.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that even negligence or carelessness in complying with court orders may amount to contempt, and that an apology tendered belatedly, particularly when punishment appears imminent, cannot be accepted as a valid defence.
The Court emphasised that an apology must reflect genuine remorse and not be used as a device to evade consequences.
The Court was hearing a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an interim order restraining the respondent from creating third-party rights over the suit property. Despite such restraint, the respondent executed a mortgage deed and later a registered sale deed during the pendency of the appeal.
A Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, while stating that “even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt”, further observed that “if the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward”.
The Bench, citing precedents, further reiterated that “apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as a panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness.”
Advocates Nimmagadda Revathi and Y.N. Vivekananda appeared for the petitioners and respondents, respectively.
Background
The contempt proceedings arose from an interim order dated 16.07.2021 passed in an appeal, whereby the respondent was permitted to take back certain original documents subject to strict conditions, including that no third-party rights would be created over the suit property and that the documents would not be mortgaged or pledged.
Subsequently, the respondent sought modification of the said order to permit mortgaging of the property on the ground of financial hardship, which was expressly rejected by the Court.
Despite this, the respondent executed a mortgage deed in 2023 and thereafter sold the property to third parties in 2024. These actions formed the basis of the contempt petition alleging wilful violation of the Court’s order.
Court’s Observation
The Court found that the execution of both the mortgage deed and the sale deed after the interim order was undisputed and admitted by the respondent. It held that such acts were in direct violation of the express conditions imposed by the Court.
Rejecting the defence that the transactions were compelled by financial hardship or were merely nominal in nature, the Court held that once an application seeking similar relief had already been rejected, there was no justification for acting contrary to the Court’s directions. It was observed that the acts were conscious and deliberate.
On the issue of wilfulness, the Court reiterated the settled principle that “willful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily either to disobey or to disregard the law.”
The Court further emphasised, relying on precedents of the Supreme Court, that even negligence or carelessness in complying with court orders may amount to contempt, particularly where such conduct results in violation of judicial directions.
Turning to the question of apology, the Court held that an apology must be bona fide, prompt, and indicative of genuine remorse. It observed that an “apology is an act of contrition… unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence, and hence it is liable to be rejected.”
The Court further relied on settled jurisprudence to hold that an apology cannot be treated as a matter of course or as a universal defence. It reiterated that a mere formal or belated apology, lacking sincerity, is nothing but a “paper apology” and cannot be accepted.
In the present case, the Court found that the apology tendered by the respondent was neither bona fide nor indicative of real contrition, but was merely an attempt to avoid punishment. Accordingly, the same was rejected.
Conclusion
The Court held that the respondent had committed wilful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order, thereby attracting contempt jurisdiction. The charges were held proved, and the apology was rejected as not bona fide.
Accordingly, the Court sentenced the respondent to simple imprisonment for one month and imposed a fine, along with costs, reiterating the necessity to uphold the authority of judicial orders and the rule of law.
Cause Title: Nagatham Suneetha & Anr. v. Nagatham Muni Rajamma & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioners: Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate
Respondents: Y.N. Vivekananda; Deepak Misra, Advocates