The Supreme Court recently took exception to the growing practice of litigants failing to comply with court orders and then filing delayed appeals challenging such orders, only to stall contempt of court proceedings initiated for their non-compliance with earlier directives [Israr Ahmed Khan v. Amarnath Prasad & ors].

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan made the observation in a February 24 order.

The Court was dealing with a case where officers of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation had indicated that they were awaiting the outcome of a review petition to decide on whether to comply with certain court directives in a service dispute.

The Court strongly criticised the federation for taking such an approach. Notably, it also flagged a larger trend of litigants filing appeals challenging court orders only after contempt proceedings are initiated over their failure to comply with court directives.

“Delayed filing of appeals should be the exception, but in recent times, the exception has practically evolved to become the rule. Orders passed by the Courts are not complied with for a long time, and when Contempt Petitions are filed, belated appeals, with tremendous delay, are preferred,”  the Court noted.

The Bench observed that such tactics are often used to secure adjournments in contempt proceedings by merely producing proof that an appeal has been filed.

“We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these practices. It is felt that by such modus operandi, disobedient litigants act brazenly which has the further effect of bringing down the authority and majesty of the Courts and the rule of law, interfering in the administration of justice. The same may well, in certain situations, border on criminal contempt,” the Court warned.

The Bench further emphasised that High Courts should deal with such unscrupulous litigants with iron hands, more so when they happen to be State functionaries. It warned that failure to do so could erode public faith in the judiciary.

“It is the solemn duty of all of us manning the Courts across the hierarchy to ensure that the public faith never wavers,” the Court added.

The Court made these observations while dealing with two contempt petitions. The petitioners had earlier approached the top court by way of civil appeals seeking service-related relief against authorities linked to the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Federation.

In a May 20, 2025 judgment, the top court directed the authorities to grant certain reliefs to the petitioners, including the creation of a supernumerary post of “Godown Keeper.” It had granted three months’ time to implement the directions, setting the compliance deadline as August 20, 2025.

The directions, however, were not implemented within the stipulated period. Instead, the Managing Director of the Federation wrote to the State government seeking guidance on implementing the order after more than two months of the compliance period had already elapsed.

Subsequent correspondence took place between the Federation and the State government.

On October 3, the State government wrote back asking whether all legal options had been exhausted against the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The compliance deadline expired on August 20, and a review petition challenging the May 20 judgment was subsequently filed in October 2025.

Following this, the petitioners moved the top court by filing contempt petitions alleging non-compliance by the Federation with the May 20 judgment.

The top court noted that after filing the review petition, the Managing Director wrote to the State government stating that a proposal to create the post was being prepared so that action could be taken depending on the outcome of the review petition.

The Court held that a prima facie case of contempt was made out, as the authorities cannot view the implementation of court directives as conditional on the outcome of its review petition.

"Lo and behold, the implementation of Order dated 20.05.2025 was sought to be and made conditional on the outcome of a Review Petition. We must unequivocally state herein that while no fetter could be placed on preferring a Review Petition, it was the duty of the alleged contemnors to first comply with the Order. Depending on the outcome of the Review Petition, further steps/adjustment could have possibly taken place. But, it was not open to the alleged contemnors to not comply with an Order of this Court on the mere filing of a Review Petition, which, at the deliberate cost of repetition, remains defective due to want of rectification by the concerned Review Petitioner," the Bench said.

The Court also noted that even the authorities had admitted that it could comply with the earlier directives if it set its mind to do so.

"It is quite clear that, at least as on date, the alleged contemnors could very well have purged the contempt but chosen not to do so ... We were of the view that Charge(s) ought to be framed against the alleged contemnors as they have all but admitted to being in contempt while offering inexcusable justifications for non-compliance," it observed.

The Bench went on to clarify that even individuals who were not parties to the original proceedings could be proceeded against for contempt if they knowingly aided or facilitated non-compliance with a court order.

It explained that once a party becomes aware of an order of the Court, any wilful default or deliberate non-compliance would make it liable to face contempt proceedings.

In the present case, the Court noted that the State government and the Additional Chief Secretary were aware of the May 20 order from July 22, 2025 onwards, as per the correspondence placed on record.

“While we have no doubt been proponents of justice being tempered with mercy, incidents like this seriously make us question whether the ‘liberal’ jurisprudence on contempt requires a serious re-look. Such issue, having come to our attention, will definitely be gone into in detail in a more appropriate case,” the Court observed.

However, the Court granted the officials one final opportunity to comply with the earlier judgment.

It directed that if affidavits showing full compliance with the order are filed before the next hearing, the officials will not have to appear in person.

If compliance is not shown, however, the officials will have to remain present before the Court on March 24, 2026, when it may proceed to frame contempt charges, the top court said.

It also directed that the review petition be placed before the appropriate Bench and ordered that copies of the judgment be circulated to the Union government and Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories so that authorities take note of its observations on compliance with court orders.

[Read Judgment]