Gone are the days when risk of contempt case sent shivers down one's spine: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently lamented the increasing instances of non-compliance with court orders, observing that contempt of court proceedings no longer appear to evoke the seriousness they once did among government officials [Senthil Kumar Vs Anu George].

Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation while dealing with a contempt petition filed by a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon who alleged that an interim order staying his transfer had not been complied with.

“Gone are those days when the very word ‘contempt’ would send shivers down one’s spine,” the Court said.

Justice Swaminathan recalled being told by a senior lawyer that contempt proceedings were once so rare that court halls would be packed whenever such a case came up for hearing.

“Compliance was the norm, defiance an exception. He lamented about the increase in filing of contempt petitions. The situation is now worse,” the judge observed.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Dr Senthilkumar, a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Department. Senthilkumar was transferred from Dindigul to Mallavadi in the Thiruvannamalai district in June 2025. He was again transferred to Thoothukudi in October 2025, which he challenged before the High Court. The transfer was stayed.

Subsequently, another transfer order was passed on May 14 this year. On May 29, Justice Swaminathan stayed this order until July 31.

Senthilkumar claimed that despite submitting a representation along with medical certificates seeking permission to rejoin duty, he was not permitted to do so. His salary was also allegedly not disbursed.

This prompted him to file a contempt of court petition, accusing the State authorities of flouting the Court's interim order.

During the hearing, the government informed the Court that IAS officer SPA Amrith had served as Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services until July 15, when IAS officer H Krishna Unni took over.

The Court held that both officers were answerable in the contempt case.

Justice Swaminathan also expressed displeasure after government counsel was unable to obtain instructions from the officials concerned despite the Court waiting for nearly ten minutes.

“When the Secretary to Government is figuring as the first respondent, I am shocked to note that the officials are so casual,” the Court remarked.

The judge stressed that government counsel appearing in contempt matters must obtain instructions in advance. They should either undertake to report compliance or offer a credible explanation for non-compliance of the court's directives, the Court added.

“Mere seeking of adjournment would not suffice,” the order stated.

The Court underscored that contempt proceedings involved the “majesty of the court” and that counsel had a duty to assist it.

“The standing of the court goes down with each passing day of non-compliance,” Justice Swaminathan observed.

The judge also referred to former Madras High Court judge Justice Battu Devanand's strict approach towards contempt proceedings, noting that even delayed compliance was not condoned by him.

“I get a feeling that all of us must emulate the path shown by His Lordship,” the Court said.

The High Court proceeded to issue notice to the former Director of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, SPA Amrith and incumbent Director H Krishna Unni.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates M Purushothaman, N Andal Sri Shankari, R Ranganathan and S Aravaanon

Government Counsel Suganya appeared for the Animal Husbandry Department officials named as contemnors in the case.

[Read Judgment]