Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petitions Against Karnataka Government — Orders Immediate Release of DRCs/TDRs in Favour of Complainants, Rejects Karnataka Government’s Attempt to Delay Compliance – “Judicial Orders Cannot Be Stifled by Procedural Maneuvers”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed multiple contempt petitions (Nos. 188–189/2013, 237/2014, 103/2025, 104/2025, 129/2025, 555/2024, 556/2024, 585/2024, 578/2022, 716/2023, 688/2021, and 135/2025) arising out of alleged wilful disobedience of its earlier directions dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022, and 10.12.2024, concerning the issuance of DRCs/TDRs to complainants (contempt petitioners) for land acquired under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996.

The Court ordered:

• Immediate release of TDRs/DRCs deposited with the Court Registry in favour of complainants, upon filing affidavit undertakings stating that receipt of TDRs/DRCs would be subject to the outcome of the pending civil appeals.
• Any notes or objections recorded on the TDRs/DRCs by the State were held to be of no legal consequence.
• Application (I.A. No. 102681/2025) filed by the State seeking deferment of release was rejected in limine.
• The Court also rectified a clerical error in CP No. 103/2025 and directed that the DRC issued in the name of “Shrimati Indrakashi Tripurawasni” be corrected to “Shrimati Indrakshi Devi” within four weeks.
• All contempt petitions and pending applications stood disposed of.

Facts

• The State of Karnataka had acquired land under the BPAT Act, 1996, promising Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)/ Development Rights Certificates (DRCs) to the landowners.
• Several civil appeals (including CA Nos. 3309–3310/1997) were decided in favour of the claimants, directing the State to issue DRCs/TDRs.
• Despite the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022, the State failed to comply.
• On 10.12.2024, the Court held the contemnors guilty of wilful non-compliance, imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 per complainant, and granted a final six-week opportunity to comply, warning that officers would have to appear in person.
• Despite this, the DRCs/TDRs were either not issued correctly or attempts were made to delay compliance through procedural applications.
• The State filed I.A. No. 102681/2025, urging the Court to withhold TDRs/DRCs until the civil appeals and review petitions were decided.
• This prompted the present batch of contempt petitions and hearings.

Issues

1. Whether the contemnors had complied with the Supreme Court’s earlier orders.
2. Whether the State’s fresh application was maintainable in contempt jurisdiction.
3. Whether conditions or delays could be imposed at this stage on release of DRCs/TDRs.
4. What relief or directions should be issued to protect State interests while ensuring compliance.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• State officials have strategically delayed and disobeyed orders.
• DRCs/TDRs were not issued in correct names or were issued belatedly.
• The costs imposed by the Court have not been disbursed.
• The State’s new application is a mischievous attempt to revisit final orders under the guise of compliance.
• Continued disobedience and procedural stalling undermines the authority of the judiciary.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Karnataka / Contemnors)

• Contended that DRCs/ TDRs should not be released until the pending civil appeals and review petitions are disposed of.
• Claimed that release may result in irretrievable loss to the exchequer if complainants eventually lose the appeals.
• Expressed apprehension that the DRCs would be monetised and become irrecoverable.
• Alternatively, requested that the Court impose conditions on the release, including undertakings from complainants.

Analysis of the Law

The Court clarified:

• In contempt jurisdiction, it cannot review or alter earlier orders; it can only ensure their compliance.
• The Court already determined wilful disobedience in its 10.12.2024 judgment and granted last opportunity to purge contempt.
• Any attempt to reopen merits of entitlement through new affidavits or applications would amount to subverting final orders.

On the scope of jurisdiction, the Court held:

“Scrutiny or examination of any other issue would only be alien to these proceedings.”

The orders dated 21.11.2014 and 17.05.2022 were held to be final and binding.

Precedent Analysis

While no specific precedents were cited in this judgment, the Court relied on settled principles of contempt jurisprudence, including:

• Contempt jurisdiction is not appellate.
• Compliance must be unconditional.
• Once directions are passed, execution cannot be halted by subsequent procedural wrangling.

Court’s Reasoning

• The State’s actions constituted wilful disobedience of clear orders.
• The Court noted with displeasure:

“Contemnors under the umbrella of the legislation orders of the Court… is sought to be stifled or staved off which cannot be countenanced at any rate.”

• The new application (I.A. No. 102681/2025) was an attempt to tweak or alter final orders and was dismissed at the threshold.
• The Court held that any fresh conditions imposed now would amount to modifying or reviewing the orders of 2014 and 2022.
• However, to balance equities, the Court directed that affidavit undertakings be obtained from complainants declaring:
  • That receipt of DRCs/TDRs would be subject to final outcome of pending civil appeals.
  • That if compensation is awarded in favour of complainants, the State will have first charge over it.

Conclusion

• The State’s application seeking deferment was rejected.
• The Registry was directed to hand over the DRCs/TDRs to complainants upon submission of undertakings.
• In CP No. 103/2025, the name on the TDR was ordered to be rectified.
• The costs deposited as per the earlier order were directed to be paid to the complainants.
• The contempt petitions were closed with these directions.

Implications

• This judgment reinforces the inviolability of judicial orders and ensures they are not rendered nugatory by administrative or procedural tactics.
• It draws a sharp line between compliance and appellate review, underscoring that execution cannot be stayed under the guise of pending appeals.
• It provides a balanced framework for ensuring compliance while safeguarding State’s financial interests.
• Future contemnors may now find it harder to use pending appeals as a shield against enforcement of final directions.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for Return of Plaint: “Goods Delivered in Delhi with Invoice, Part of Cause of Action Arises Within Territorial Jurisdiction”