Disregarding court's order may seem bold, but consequences long, cold: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has convicted a man from Mumbai for contempt of court and sentenced him till the rising of the court, saying disregarding a court’s order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal noted an undoubtedly, appalling breach of legal decorum which has in its face challenged the sanctity of the orders passed by this court.

The bench said "The power to punish for contempt of court’s order is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system. By addressing and penalising contemptuous conduct, the legal system reinforces its own legitimacy and ensures that judicial orders and proceedings are taken seriously. This deterrent effect helps to maintain the rule of law and reinforces public’s faith in the judicial process, ensuring that Courts can function effectively without undue interference or disrespect."

The court underscored the contempt powers are integral to maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

"The ability to address contempt ensures that the authority of the court is respected and that the administration of justice is not hampered by willful disobedience. In the said context, the power of this court to punish for contempt is a cornerstone of its authority, integral to the administration of justice and the maintenance of its own dignity," it said.

Enshrined in Article 129 of the Constitution of India, this power is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and confidence in the judicial system, the bench added.

In a recent order, the court said Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, a senior citizen, who was produced before the court on second non bailable arrest warrant, had deliberately and willfully not complied with the order of June 6, 2023 and undertaking given for vacating premises within nine months.

"From the date of expiry of time to hand over the possession i.e., 6.3.2024, six months’ further period has elapsed, even then compliance is not reported till today," the bench said.

Jain, on his part, said he is a poor person with large family to support, and apologised for his conduct and later sought pardon.

In the same breath he said that the curative petitions filed by him are still pending, and until those are decided, time may be granted.

Rejecting his contention, the bench said the curative petition is decided in chamber and said recourse is not available to the contemnor.

The court termed his prayer for further time as wholly unreasonable and a deliberate attempt to not to comply the directions, after dismissing his petition, review plea and application for extension of time.

Apart from sentence till rising of the court, the bench directed him to pay the cost of his production before the court. On his request, the court gave him one week's time to vacate the premises or he would be dispossessed and cost would be borne by him.