The Supreme Court has expressed concern over a lenient approach taken by judicial institutions, stating that it has emboldened unscrupulous litigants to defy court orders with impunity.
The court emphasized that when contemnors use the legal system as a “potent weapon” and a “legal trick” to avoid responsibility, courts need not show compassion.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra made the observation while hearing a case from the Gujarat High Court, where five individuals were sentenced under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying an undertaking given to the court in a property dispute in 2015.
Despite the undertaking, the appellants executed 13 sale deeds in favor of different parties. The high court sentenced three of them to two months of simple imprisonment and required the other two to pay Rs 1 lakh in lieu of imprisonment.
The bench stressed that fake apologies should not be accepted, and the court is not obligated to accept apologies that are not unconditional, unqualified, and genuine. They emphasized that a true apology should reflect deep ethical introspection, atonement, and self-reform. The court should not accept apologies when they appear to be a legal ploy to evade responsibility.
The Supreme Court noted that there should not be a tendency for courts to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or order is deliberate and conscious. It highlighted the importance of upholding the sanctity of judicial proceedings in a society governed by law, as any interference with the judicial process undermines the foundation of democracy and leads to anarchy.
In dismissing the appeal filed by the contemnors, the bench granted them two weeks to surrender and serve their sentences as imposed by the high court. The court clarified that the purpose of disciplining contempt of court is not to protect the dignity of the court or the judge but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.
The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is intended to correct individuals who deviate from legal norms and attempt to disregard or assume authority over the law. It seeks to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice by disciplining those who disobey court orders or undertakings.
The bench lamented that courts have shown undue leniency and magnanimity toward contemnors over time, leading to a culture of disobedience. This lenient attitude has emboldened litigants to defy court orders or undertakings without consequences.
