The Delhi High Court recently clarified that non-compliance with every direction issued by the court does not automatically justify initiating contempt proceedings. The division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan delivered this judgment while examining a contempt petition filed by 2002-batch Indian Forest Services officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
The contempt petition arose after Chaturvedi alleged that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had willfully disobeyed court orders directing the production of relevant records, including the IB threat assessment report concerning his life. The court had initially directed the IB to provide these records on July 27, 2023, and reiterated its instructions on August 21, 2024. Chaturvedi, former Chief Vigilance Officer of AIIMS Delhi and recipient of the 2015 Ramon Magsaysay Award, sought judicial directions compelling the IB to disclose the threat report. The main case is scheduled for further hearing before a coordinate bench on September 10, 2025.
The dispute dates back to May 2014, when the then Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) requested the IB Director to assess threats to Chaturvedi’s life. The Ministry refused to provide the report under the RTI Act. Following Chaturvedi’s appeal, the Central Information Commission directed the IB’s CPIO in April 2016 to disclose the report. The IB challenged this order in the Delhi High Court. In August 2017, the High Court dismissed the IB’s appeal, after which the IB moved the division bench in October 2017, and the matter remains pending.
Senior advocate Sudarshan Goel, representing the petitioner, highlighted the procedural difficulty in naming a contemnor. He stated, “When the IB has neither a website nor the name of the CPIO in the public domain, how could their name be produced before the court?” He referred to a precedent where a single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna in March issued contempt notices to the CPIO of the CBI without naming the individual. Advocate Goel further emphasized that, under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, willful disobedience of a court order constitutes civil contempt and can trigger proceedings against the defaulter.
The bench observed that the power to compel production of documents exists, but violation of each and every direction does not automatically merit contempt proceedings. The Court stated, “The bench, while hearing the appeal, possesses sufficient power to compel a party to produce documents. However, the violation of each and every direction issued does not automatically call for the initiation of contempt proceedings". Additionally, the Court noted a procedural limitation, stating, “The contempt proceedings cannot be initiated against an office since the respondent has not even provided the name of the contemnor".
The Court clarified that contempt proceedings should not be lightly invoked and cannot be initiated against an office where the identity of the individual responsible is unknown.
Picture Source :
