Consider Jurisprudence Routinely Adopted Is Counterproductive; Bad Practice To Invoke Contempt Jurisdiction For Quick Relief: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the alleged contemnor against an interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing the listing of the contempt petition for framing of charges.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court
While dealing with a litigation involving the sanctioning of posts in a private college, which continued for 16 years, the Supreme Court has held that the “consider jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted these days, is counterproductive and harms the system. The Apex Court also held that it is a bad practice to invoke contempt jurisdiction for quick relief, even when appealable orders have already been passed.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the alleged contemnor against an interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing the listing of the contempt petition for framing of charges.
The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe stated, “There is no doubt about the fact that the “consider jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system.”
“We have also noticed the recent tendency, a bad practice so to say, to invoke contempt jurisdiction for quick relief, even when appealable orders have already been passed. In this very case, there is a detailed order of the government dated 09.05.2025, and this has remained unchallenged. Though the High Court passed the order impugned before us on 28.05.2025, there is no reference to the decision of the government dated 09.05.2025. It is necessary for the respondents to challenge the said order”, it added.
ASG Vikramjit Banerjee represented the Appellant, while AOR Aditya Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college sometime in the year 1993. The college was receiving certain financial assistance from the State, and this ended with the advent of the Government policy dated August 21, 2000, not to grant financial assistance to non-aided Government colleges. Challenging this policy by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the respondents sought directions for the sanction of the posts and also for the payment of salaries. The High Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the Director of Education to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The Director of Education held that it was not possible to create lecturer posts in B.SC. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics subjects in Ranveer Rananjay Postgraduate College, Amethi, Sultanpur as desired by the petitioners.
Following the direction to reconsider the respondents’ claim, the authorities again passed an order reiterating their position. The order was challenged in the third writ petition, and the High Court by its order dated July 14, 2023, remitted the matter to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, U.P, Lucknow. Meanwhile, the respondents filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the order dated July 14, 2023. The last governmental decision was made on May 9, 2025, whereby the demand for the creation of posts of lecturers in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at the graduate level in the concerned college and providing regular salary to the petitioners was dismissed.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that as the “First Season” with multiple episodes of rejection orders followed by successive ‘consider’ and ‘reconsider’ directions of the High Court reached nowhere, commencement of contempt proceedings only opened up the “Second Season” of inconclusive directions for filing affidavits after affidavits. “Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our laws, but the way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies. We are not be mistaken as sermonising, for such episodic disposal could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court. Our endeavour is to ensure that we take notice of it and adopt course correction”, it added.
The Bench made it clear that if a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. “Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its working and practice. Unlike law and its procedures, good practices that evolve over a period of time are far more precious than written laws, as it is in this practice that we see acceptance and internalization of the spirit of law. It is necessary to recognize, nurture and develop good practices which become habits”, it added.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench opined that there had not been a clear and categorical direction about the existence of a right, its violation and what exactly the government was to comply with. The Bench held that the courts must articulate its direction in clear terms and also specify the method and manner of compliance if necessary.
Considering that the present litigation had spanned for over 16 years, the Bench permitted the respondents to file a writ petition against the order dated May 9, 2025. “The High Court shall not remand the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective of the government is clearly evident”, the Bench ordered while disposing of the Appeal.
Cause Title: Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 175)
Appearance
Appellant: ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, AOR Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Pushkar Sharma, Vikramaditya Chauhan, Gaj Singh
Respondent: AOR Aditya Singh, Advocates Shubham Singh, Kamal Kishor, Vaseem, AOR Anand Ranjan