Supreme Court Holds That In Contempt Jurisdiction, Fresh Compliance Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice Before Alleging Wilful Disobedience

Held: The Supreme Court held that where compliance with earlier judicial directions involves determination of individual entitlements and factual verification, alleged contemnors cannot be held guilty of wilful disobedience unless the prescribed procedure, including granting opportunity of hearing, summoning of records, and passing of a reasoned order, is duly followed by the competent authority.

Summary: The contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court affirming a High Court judgment granting part-time contractual teachers parity of basic pay for specified periods. The petitioners contended that despite representations, the State authorities neither granted hearings nor examined school records as mandated. During hearing, the respondent-State fairly conceded that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing and that records were not summoned before deciding the representations. The Supreme Court examined the scope of contempt jurisdiction, the nature of the original directions, and the factual matrix placed on record, and found that the grievance pertained to procedural non-compliance rather than deliberate defiance of the Court’s authority.

Decision: The contempt petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representations within six weeks, directing the competent authority to afford a personal hearing, summon and permit inspection of relevant records, and pass a detailed reasoned order within four months, while clarifying that adverse orders, if any, would remain open to challenge in accordance with law, with all pending applications disposed of.