Pending Review Petition Is Not a Defence for Non-Compliance of Court Orders: Supreme Court Warns Officials in Contempt Proceedings

Case Name: Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors.; Md. Hanif v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 209; Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 5 of 2026 and 6 of 2026

Date of Judgment/Order: 24 February 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

Held: The Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a review petition does not justify non-compliance with a judicial order, and unless the order is stayed, modified, or set aside by a competent court, it must be obeyed. Administrative hurdles, internal approvals, or pending proceedings cannot be used as excuses to delay implementation of a binding order. The Court further reiterated that even third parties or authorities who were not originally parties to the proceedings may be liable for contempt if they knowingly aid or facilitate the disobedience of a court’s order.

Summary: The contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 20 May 2025 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7023 and 7024 of 2025, which required compliance within three months. The alleged contemnors sought to justify the delay on grounds of administrative difficulties and by pointing to a review petition filed against the order. The Court examined the correspondence between officials of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation and the State Government and noted that compliance had not been undertaken despite the expiry of the prescribed period. It observed that the attempt to condition compliance on the outcome of a review petition was impermissible and demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the authority of the Court. Relying on established precedent including Sita Ram v. Balbir, the Court reiterated that even persons who are not parties to the original proceedings can be proceeded against for contempt if they knowingly aid or abet violation of a judicial order. The Court also emphasised the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction, stating that the only issue before a contempt court is whether the order has been complied with, not whether the order was correct. The judgment further criticised the increasing practice of filing delayed appeals or review petitions merely to stall compliance with court orders and warned that such conduct undermines the authority of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Decision: The Supreme Court found a prima facie case of contempt against the alleged contemnors but granted them a final opportunity of fifteen days to fully comply with the order dated 20 May 2025; the matter was directed to be listed on 24 March 2026 as part-heard, failing which the Court would proceed to frame formal contempt charges and require the personal presence of the concerned officials.