The Supreme Court recently criticised what it termed “consider jurisprudence”, referring to the growing practice of courts remanding matters to government authorities for reconsideration rather than giving a concrete decision on the legal dispute before it [Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v Arvind Kumar Singh].

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that such practices serve to prolong the dispute and harm the justice delivery system.

“There is no doubt about the fact that the 'consider jurisprudence', so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system,” the Bench remarked.

The Court emphasised that when a legal right exists, relief must follow. It stressed that constitutional and statutory remedies are not meant for academic or theoretical discourse, and that if a case deserves relief, it must be granted immediately.

“If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief. These are not matters of law, but of its working and practice," the Court said.

The Bench made the observation after taking critical note of how a 16-year-old dispute involving college lecturers from Uttar Pradesh was prolonged because it was repeatedly sent back by the High Court to the authorities concerned for reconsideration.

The Bench added that it is not commenting on this particular case alone, but on counterproductive practices adopted by courts, including even the Supreme Court.

“Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our laws, but the way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies. We are not be mistaken as sermonising, for such episodic disposal could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court. Our endeavour is to ensure that we take notice of it and adopt course correction,” the Court said in an order passed on February 10.

The dispute before the Court traces back to 1993, when a group of lecturers was appointed in a private college in Uttar Pradesh. At that time, the college was receiving certain financial assistance from the State.

However, in August 2000, the State government introduced a policy prohibiting financial assistance to non-aided colleges and banning the creation of new posts.

Following this policy change, the lecturers sought sanction of their posts and payment of regular salaries from the State exchequer, contending that they were performing regular teaching duties and should be treated on par with aided staff.

In 2010, they approached the Allahabad High Court seeking such relief. Instead of granting substantive relief, the High Court directed the Director of Education to examine their claim and pass a speaking and reasoned order. In March 2011, the Director rejected the claim, citing the 2000 policy.

What followed was a prolonged cycle of litigation. In 2013, the High Court quashed the rejection and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter.

The authorities again rejected the claim, reiterating that the posts fell under a self-financing scheme and that salaries were being paid by the college management, not the State.

In 2023, the High Court once again set aside the rejection and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

Alleging non-compliance with the High Court’s directions, the lecturers initiated contempt proceedings. During the pendency of those proceedings, the government passed yet another detailed rejection order dated May 9, 2025.

Despite this fresh order, the High Court directed that the contempt petition against the Principal Secretary of Higher Education in Uttar Pradesh, Mahendra Prasad Agarwal, be listed for framing of charges.

Aggrieved by this, the Principal Secretary approached the Supreme Court.

After examining the case, the top court noted that there had been no clear and categorical direction by the High Court on the lecturers’ rights or a directive specifying what exactly the government was required to comply with.

”There has not been a clear and categorical direction about the existence of a right, its violation and what exactly the government is to comply. Had there been such clarity, the government would not have choice. In fact, it should have no choice. It should either comply, appeal or face contempt. It is necessary for the courts to articulate its direction in clear terms and also specify the method and manner of compliance if necessary,” the Court said.

The Bench further cautioned against the growing tendency to use contempt proceedings as a shortcut to secure relief.

It noted that in this case, the government’s detailed order dated May 9, 2025, had remained unchallenged, and said it was necessary for the lecturers to challenge that order instead of pursuing contempt.

Noting that the litigation had already spanned over 16 years, the top court permitted the lecturers to file a fresh plea challenging the government’s order dated May 9, 2025.

It also directed the High Court to first decide the writ petition on merits and not send the matter back to the State authorities again.

The Court made it clear that if the High Court finds merit in the case, it should pass clear and categorical directions for compliance.

If it does not, it can dismiss the writ petition with clear and simple reasons, the top court added.

The Court also requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the matter to an appropriate bench for final disposal by April 30, 2026.

[Read Judgment]