Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of a contempt petition filed alleging wilful disobedience of its earlier order directing the authorities to open/de-seal a property in Jaipur and restore possession to the petitioner.
The Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by the concerned civic officials and discharged the contempt notice. However, the Court expressed grave displeasure over the delay, describing the conduct as showing a disturbing pattern of evasion, inaction and deliberate disregard for clear orders of the Supreme Court.
The Court also warned that any future default or negligence in complying with judicial orders would be viewed with utmost severity.
Facts
The case arose from a pending batch of Special Leave Petitions concerning orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in a PIL relating to alleged unauthorised constructions within the Walled City area of Jaipur.
The High Court had passed directions for demolition and permanent sealing of certain private properties, including the petitioner’s property, without impleading or hearing the affected parties. Several affected property owners approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the High Court’s directions and, by order dated 30 January 2026, specifically directed the authorities to de-seal the petitioner’s premises and restore possession.
Despite this clear direction, the petitioner had to send a written representation on 6 February 2026, an email on 11 February 2026, and a legal notice on 12 March 2026. Still, the property remained sealed.
The petitioner therefore initiated contempt proceedings.
Issues
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the authorities had wilfully disobeyed the Court’s order dated 30 January 2026 by delaying the de-sealing of the premises and restoration of possession.
The Court also examined whether the subsequent demand of ₹10,52,832/- as purported premium/security deposit, made around the time of compliance, was proper.
Petitioner’s Case
The petitioner alleged that despite the Supreme Court’s direct order, the authorities failed to de-seal the property.
The petitioner argued that the authorities had been repeatedly informed of the Court’s order through representation, email and legal notice, but no compliance was carried out until contempt proceedings were initiated.
Authorities’ Stand
After the Supreme Court called upon the authorities to explain non-compliance, the concerned officials appeared before the Court.
The authorities later stated that the property had been de-sealed on 25 April 2026 and possession had been handed over.
They also filed affidavits tendering unconditional apologies and explained that the delay occurred due to administrative communications between different departments.
The communication demanding ₹10,52,832/- was also withdrawn.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court took serious note of the delay. It observed that the order directing de-sealing had been passed on 30 January 2026, but compliance occurred only on 25 April 2026, nearly three months later.
The Court said that public officials cannot treat orders of the highest Court as something to be dealt with at their convenience. It observed that contempt of Supreme Court orders strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and authority of the judiciary.
The Court also held that when public functionaries defy judicial orders, it erodes citizens’ confidence in the legal system.
₹10.52 Lakh Demand
A significant part of the judgment concerns the demand of ₹10,52,832/- made from the petitioner as purported premium/security deposit.
The Court viewed this demand, issued at the moment of compliance with the de-sealing order, as wholly improper and bearing the character of a coercive and retaliatory act against the petitioner.
The demand was later withdrawn by the authorities, and an unconditional apology was tendered.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the property was de-sealed only after contempt proceedings were initiated and after the Court granted the authorities 24 hours to ensure compliance.
The Court was initially prima facie satisfied that this was a fit case for framing of charge. However, it also observed that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with restraint and discretion.
Since the authorities ultimately complied with the order, withdrew the improper demand, and tendered unconditional apologies, the Court accepted the apologies and discharged the contempt notice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition after accepting the unconditional apology of the concerned officials.
However, the Court made it clear that acceptance of the apology should not be understood as minimising the seriousness of the conduct. It warned that future non-compliance or negligence in complying with judicial orders would not receive the same indulgence.
The Court also clarified that its observations were confined to the contempt petition and would not affect the merits of the main Special Leave Petition, which remains pending.
Key Takeaway
Court orders are not advisory requests. Public officials must comply promptly and fully. Delay, evasion or retaliatory demands after judicial directions can amount to serious contempt and undermine public faith in the rule of law.
