“Paper Apology” Cannot Be Accepted In Contempt Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that "paper apology" cannot be accepted in contempt of court cases.
According to the Court, "Paper Apology' is an apology which is hollow; or with no remorse, regret or repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigour of the law.
The court observed thus while holding that Mrs. M. Saraswathi, the Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare, guilty of contempt of court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (CC Act).
The Court had directed the Deputy Director to consider the petitioner's request for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Maths) in an earlier order. However, the Deputy Director did not comply with the order and instead rejected the Petitioner's request.
The Court, while rejecting the apology offered, noted that it cannot serve as a defense, justification, or appropriate punishment for contempt of court. The Bench also observed that the Deputy Director’s subsequent compliance with the writ order was not an answer to the willful disobedience of the order.
The Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed, “Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow; there is no remorse; no regret; no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigour of the law. Such an apology can merely be termed as “paper apology”."
Advocate Kishore Kumar appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate K. Amrith Raj appeared for the Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare.
A contempt case was filed against S. Saraswathi, Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare (Deputy Director), for failing to comply with a Court order dated August 14, 2019. The Deputy Director did not comply with the order and instead rejected the Petitioner's request. The Deputy Director contended that she was awaiting clarification from the Director of Tribal Welfare before considering the case.
However, the Cout observed that the Deputy Director had the necessary information to consider the Petitioner's case and that her delay in doing so was willful. The Bench noted that the apology of the Deputy Director was not bona fide and had acted deliberately to subvert the order. The Court noted that the Deputy Director’s apology was not genuine and that her actions were deliberately intended to thwart the Court's order.
Furthermore, the Bench reiterated that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. The Court has cited the cases of Jhareswar Prasad Paul v Tarak Nath Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352] and Kapildeo Prasad Sah v State of Bihar [AIR 1999 SC 3215]. The Bench emphasized that the power to punish for contempt of court is a special power vested in the Courts to maintain the rule of law and the effective legal system.
The Court also noted that there is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt since the administration of justice would be undermined if the orders of the Courts could be disregarded with impunity.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the case.
Cause title: P. Satyanarayana Reddy v M. Saraswathi, Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare
