While expressing displeasure and concern over the fact that the Jaipur Nagar Nigam Officials defied the orders of the Court directing the de-sealing of a certain property, the Supreme Court accepted their unconditional apologies and discharged the contempt notice.

The Apex Court was considering a contempt petition initiated against the contemnors, being the Deputy Commissioner, Vigilance, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur, Rajasthan; the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan; and the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “At the very outset, this Court must place on record its grave and unequivocal displeasure at the conduct of the respondent-contemnors. The record reveals a and deliberate disregard for clear and unambiguous orders of this Court. It is a matter of deep concern that officials entrusted with the discharge of public duties under the law found it permissible to treat the orders of the highest Court of this land as something to be addressed at their leisure, rather than with the promptitude and urgency that such directions imperatively demand.”

“In view of the foregoing, and in light of the unconditional apologies tendered by the contemnors as well as the fact that compliance with the order of de-sealing has now been effected, we accept the apology and discharge the present contempt notice”, it ordered.

Senior Advocate Ashok Gaur represented the Appellant, while AOR Manisha Ambwani represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience and contempt of the interim order of the High Court passed in an interim application, whereby the Court had directed the concerned authorities to open/de-seal a house and to restore possession thereof to the petitioner. The pending batch of Special Leave Petitions before the Court arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Rajasthan High Court, wherein allegations were made regarding unauthorized construction within the Walled City area of Jaipur. The High Court passed orders of demolition and permanent sealing of certain private properties, including that of the petitioner, without impleadment or an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Several Special Leave Petitions were filed by persons whose properties were directed to be sealed. The Court issued notice and stayed the operation of the orders passed by the High Court. In the meantime, the Court passed orders and directions for the de-sealing of certain properties.

As per the petitioner, he had filed a written representation before the Deputy Commissioner, but the respondent authorities failed to comply with the directions of the Court and continued to keep the premises sealed. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondent-authorities calling upon them to comply with the order of the Court. The petitioner initiated the contempt petition in light of the persistent and wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that with the de-sealing of the premises, the Director, Directorate of Local Bodies, issued a communication demanding a sum of Rs. 10,52,832 from the petitioner as a purported premium/security deposit. “This Court views such a demand, made at the very moment of compliance with a judicial order directing restoration of possession, as wholly improper and bearing the character of a coercive and retaliatory act against the petitioner”, it stated.

The Bench held, “Contempt of the orders of this Court strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary. When public functionaries, who are the custodians and executors of the law, defy judicial orders with impunity, it casts a deep and lasting shadow over the administration of justice and erodes the confidence of the citizens in the legal system.”

Taking note of the sequence of events with dismay, the Bench found that the order directing the de-sealing of the petitioner's property was passed as far back as January 30, 2026 and months elapsed without compliance. “Despite the petitioner's written representation dated 6th February 2026, his follow-up email of 11th February 2026, and the legal notice dated 12th March 2026, there was inaction of the part of the respondent-authorities”, it further noted.

The Bench also found that it was only upon the initiation of the contempt petition, and thereafter, upon the Court granting 24 hours to ensure compliance, that the machinery was finally set in motion. The property was de-sealed on April 25, 2026, which was nearly three months after the direction was issued. “On examination of the entire trail of communications placed before us, this Court was prima facie satisfied that charges ought to be framed which is a finding recorded in the order dated 18th May 2026”, it added.

Considering that the respondent contemnors, the Deputy Commissioner Seema Choudhary, Director-cum-Special Secretary Juikar Pratik Chandrashekhar and the Commissioner, Om Prakash Kasera, had each tendered unconditional affidavits of apology before the Court for the delay in complying with its orders and the contemnors had further submitted that the communication demanding a sum of Rs 10,52,832 from the petitioner as a purported premium/security, was withdrawn, the Bench stated, “This Court accepts the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnors. The acceptance of the apology, however, must not be understood as a minimisation of the conduct that gave rise to these proceedings.”

The Bench further put the contemnors on clear and unambiguous notice that any future default or negligence in judicial orders would be viewed with the utmost severity and would not be treated with the same degree of indulgence. Thus, the Bench discharged the contempt notice.

Cause Title: Bharat Kumar Badlani v. Seema Chaudhary (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 606)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Ashok Gaur, AOR Megha Karnwal, Advocate Sakshi Singh, AOR D. K. Devesh

Respondent: AOR Manisha Ambwani, AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep Mehta

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.