Jammu: The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised the conduct of Jammu and Kashmir administration officials for bypassing procedural norms in a contempt matter arising from the non-compliance of a High Court order related to contractor payments.
A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was hearing a special leave petition filed by the Union Territory (UT) administration challenging two orders of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, one passed by a single judge and another by a division bench.
The controversy stemmed from the High Court’s direction to the administration to consider making admitted payments to plant suppliers within two months, a directive that went unfulfilled.
When the payments were not made, the aggrieved contractors initiated contempt proceedings before the High Court. Instead of appearing before the single judge to explain their stance whether the payments had been made or were not legally due, the UT administration filed an intra-court appeal before the division bench, which was subsequently dismissed.
The matter was then escalated to the Supreme Court.
Criticising this approach, Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Sometimes bureaucrats have arrogance, they don’t want to go before high courts.”
The court emphasised that the appropriate course of action would have been to place the facts before the single judge in the contempt proceedings.
“In our considered opinion, it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to explain to the single judge before whom the contempt proceeding is pending that the respondents have either been paid their due amount or they are not entitled to such payment,” the court observed in its order.
The bench clarified that once the authorities provide a satisfactory explanation, it is for the High Court to assess the merits of the petitioners’ defence and proceed according to law.
Addressing concerns raised by the division bench regarding a possible “roving inquiry” by the single judge, the Supreme Court stated that any such inquiry must be within legal bounds and limited to individual claims.
During the hearing, additional solicitor general Brijendra Chahar, appearing for the UT administration, argued that a show-cause notice had been issued, implying a presumption of contempt. This prompted a sharp response from the Bench.
Justice Dipankar Datta said, “The concerned officer has been asked to attend virtually. He can explain it to the court if his counsel is not in a position to explain. You should not have gone for a division bench appeal. Nobody has yet held that you are in contempt.”
When the ASG stressed the issuance of the show-cause notice, Justice Surya Kant retorted,
“So what Why can’t they go and explain Every show-cause notice we will start examining here, then ”
Justice Datta added, “The first thing a court is required to do on receiving a petition is issue a show-cause. So you mean to say no show-cause can be issued to bureaucrats ”
On the question of whether the High Court had wrongly entertained the contempt plea, the bench firmly responded: “Why should we examine The High Court will examine it, before which contempt is pending. We are not sitting here as advisors, that we will tell the High Court on behalf of these babus whether contempt is made out or not.”
The court concluded that if any punishment is ultimately imposed by the single judge, the affected officer retains the right to appeal before the division bench of the High Court.
This sharp judicial rebuke by the Supreme Court said that the Government officers must engage sincerely with judicial processes and avoid using appeals as a tool to evade accountability. (Agencies)
