Summary
A Tehsildar, convicted of contempt by the High Court for demolishing dwellings on the subject land and evicting the occupants the night after the High Court had specifically restrained him, and sentenced to two months' simple imprisonment with a fine, appealed. The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction, holding that no one is above the law and disobedience of court orders attacks the foundation of the rule of law, but modified the sentence so that his family would not suffer the dismissal from service that imprisonment would entail: reversion from Deputy Collector to Tehsildar with seniority counted only from 31.10.2023, and a fine of Rs.1,00,000.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully disobeying the High Court's orders dated 13.09.2013 and 11.12.2013 should be sustained.
- Whether the sentence of two months' simple imprisonment should be modified, given that imprisonment would under the service rules lead to the appellant's dismissal from service and deprive his family of its livelihood.
Provisions considered
- Conviction and sentence for contempt (no specific section discussed), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The High Court convicted the appellant under the Act for deliberately and wilfully disobeying its orders and sentenced him to two months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000. The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction but, taking a lenient view only for the sake of his family, substituted reversion by one rank in service and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 for the custodial sentence. (¶¶ 2, 3.10, 14, 17, 18, 20)
Held
- When a Constitutional Court, or any court, issues a direction, every person or authority regardless of rank is duty bound to respect and comply with it. Disobedience of court orders attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which democracy rests; no one, howsoever high, is above the law. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The appellant ought to have considered the consequences before demolishing the structures of home dwellers and throwing them and their belongings on the road, and that too despite the specific warning in the High Court's order dated 11.12.2013. His actions were inhumane and his conduct adamant and callous; a person who behaves in this way cannot expect the Court to take a humanitarian approach and does not himself merit leniency. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 12)
- The majesty of law lies not in punishing but in forgiving. Although the appellant did not deserve leniency, his children and family should not suffer for his actions; since undergoing the two-month sentence would lead to his immediate dismissal under the service rules and deprive his family of its livelihood, the conviction was affirmed while the sentence of imprisonment was modified to a reduction of one level in rank together with a heavy fine, so as to still send the right message. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 confirmed. In place of the sentence of imprisonment, the State of Andhra Pradesh directed to revert the appellant from Deputy Collector to the post of Tehsildar, his seniority in that cadre for further promotion to count only from 31.10.2023; fine of Rs.1,00,000 to be deposited under the NTR Housing Scheme, Government of Andhra Pradesh, within four weeks with proof of payment to the Registry. Pending applications disposed of.