[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Navneeth Krishnan vs Rachna Shah on 29 January, 2026
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:7700
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2025 IN OP (CAT) NO.14 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
NAVNEETH KRISHNAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. M.V. UNNIKRISHNAN, 'SREYAS', KAIPPALLIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SHRI.HARISANKAR.K.V.
SHRI.ANUPAM KRISHNA NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RACHNA SHAH
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING, UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL
SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:7700
2 VIJAYALAKSHMI PRASANNA BIDARI
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (KARNATAKA KERALA REGION), KENDRIYA SADAN,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA -, PIN - 560034
3 RAJESH AGGARWAL
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHIEF COMMISSIONER
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES, SAROJINI HOUSE, 6, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, BHAGWAN DAS LANE,
MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI-., PIN - 110001
BY ADV SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, CGC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2026, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
3
2026:KER:7700
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution
of India, alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance with the
judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in O.P.(CAT) No. 14 of 2024, arising out
of O.A. No. 325/2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed the
Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking
the following reliefs:
"(i) Direct the 2nd respondent to recommend candidates from the
selection done for all the available 45 posts under the category PwD-
Others.
(ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to make necessary modifications in
Annexure A8 final selection list recommending candidates for all the
available 45 posts under the category PwD-Others and to consider the
candidature of the applicant based on his first option as reflected in
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
Annexure A6;
(iii) To issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal made
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(iv) To award costs to the applicant."
2.1 The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner preferred the Original Petition before
this Court. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Original
Petition by issuing the following directions:
"6. We thus put a caveat on the extracted portion (supra) of the judgment
of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dispose of the original
petition while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India by issuing direction to the respondents to undertake the task of
identifying the posts meant for Persons with Disabilities in all the
departments of Central Government having different Codes and consider
the persons who have already found to be eligible (having obtained more
marks than the cut off marks) for considering them to be appointed to
the said posts. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of four(4)
months."
3. The impugned judgment consists of two parts:
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
(i) the respondents are directed to undertake the task of identifying
the posts meant for Persons with Disabilities in all Central Government
departments having different codes; and
(ii) thereafter, to consider persons who have already been found to be
eligible, having obtained marks higher than the cut-off marks, for
appointment to the said posts.
3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that,
despite the directions issued by this Court, the order has not been
complied with for more than eleven months. Therefore, such non-
compliance amounts to clear and willful disobedience of the directions
of this Court and constitutes contempt, rendering the respondents liable
to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
4. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel for the
respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that no
willful disobedience can be attributed to the respondents herein,
inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court had directed the
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
undertaking of the task of identifying posts meant for persons with
disabilities in all Central Government Departments. The first respondent
is not the authority competent to implement the directions issued by
this Court. As regards the second respondent, it was submitted that they
merely conduct selections at the request of various departments from
time to time. Neither the first nor the second respondent is empowered
to identify posts as directed by this Court. The third respondent, being
the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, is only an
adjudicating authority in respect of complaints lodged by persons with
disabilities.
4.1 However, with a view to complying with the directions
contained in the Original Petition, the matter was referred to the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of
Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi. In turn, an Office
Memorandum dated 07.04.2025 was issued in compliance with the
judgment passed in O.P.(CAT) No. 14 of 2024, which is the subject matter
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
of the present case. The exercise of identification of posts has already
commenced.
4.2 From the pleadings in the Original Application as well as the
Original Petition, it is not clear whether the petitioner had applied for
any post in any of the Central Government Departments. In such
circumstances, the second part of the judgment cannot be complied
with, as the petitioner has not produced any document to establish that
he had already been found eligible for consideration for appointment to
the said posts.
4.3 In the above circumstances, no willful contempt is made out
against any of the respondents. In any event, in view of the issuance of
the Office Memorandum dated 07.04.2025 and the commencement of the
process pursuant thereto, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedies
in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the contempt case is
liable to be dismissed, and the rule nisi issued against the
respondents/alleged contemnors stands discharged.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
6. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines "civil
contempt" as the willful disobedience of a court's judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ, or other process, or the willful breach of an
undertaking given to a court.
6.1 Initiation of contempt proceedings requires a deliberate,
intentional flouting of court orders rather than mere
negligence. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act forms the basis
for initiating civil contempt proceedings, allowing Courts to penalize
parties who refuse to comply with judicial orders.
Judicial Pronouncements:
Niaz Mohammad And Others v. State Of Haryana and Others 1
7. The Supreme Court in the above case has dealt with Section
(1994) 6 SCC 332
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
2(b) elaborately as follows:
"9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') defines "Civil Contempt" to mean "willful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other process of a
court...". Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry
out an order of the court made in favour of the party, it is a civil
contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction
has been made can move the Court for initiating proceeding for contempt
against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing
from the order or direction in question. But such a proceeding is not like
an execution proceeding under CPC. The party in whose favour an order
has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The Court while
considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be
punished for not having complied and carried out the direction of the
Court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a
particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil
contempt, have said that it must be willful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a
contemner is punished for non compliance of the direction of a court the
Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment,
decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such
disobedience was willful and intentional. The Civil Court while executing
a decree against the judgment debtor is not concerned and bothered
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was willful. Once
a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree
whatever may be consequences thereof. But while examining the
grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to
initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before
any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record
a finding that such disobedience was willful and intentional. If from the
circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the
Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such
disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances which it was
not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the Court may
not punish the alleged contemner."
A.K. Jayaprakash v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao2
8. The Supreme Court in the above case in paragraphs 16 to 19
held as follows:
"16. The question that arises for consideration is whether the delayed
compliance constitutes wilful disobedience so as to attract the
jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
17. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others - (2003) 11
SCC 1, this Court has held that contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold
the majesty of law and not to settle personal grievances. Similarly, in
2025 INSC 1003
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another (2006) 11 SCC 114, in a case of
civil contempt, the breach must be deliberate and intentional.
18. Tested on the anvil of the above principles, we find that although the
Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by this Court, the
material placed on record do not demonstrate that the delay in
compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent. The
explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and
retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such
circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this
Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil
contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.
19. Insofar as the claim for pension is concerned, it is evident that no such
relief was ever sought in the Civil Appeal Nos. 6732-6733 of 2009 or any
other earlier proceedings or submissions moved by the Petitioner, nor
was there any adjudication to the said effect by the courts below.
Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking
substantive reliefs which were neither raised nor granted earlier."
Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly3
9. In the above case, the Supreme Court was considering an
appeal from the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
(2002) 5 SCC 352
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
which held that the respondent/contemners had not complied with the
order in an appropriate manner, but there is some doubt and the
respondent/contemners were entitled to benefit of doubt. However, the
Division Bench issued new orders different than the original one which
were disapproved by the Supreme Court observing thus:
"11. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and
dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded
by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and
the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is
undermined. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced
under the statute for the purpose of securing the feeling of confidence of
the people in general for true and proper administration of justice in the
country. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special power
vested under the Constitution in the courts of record and also under the
statute. The power is special and needs to be exercised with care and
caution. It should be used sparingly by the courts on being satisfied
regarding the true effect of contemptuous conduct. It is to be kept in
mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt
does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of
the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be
confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who
is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The
court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into
questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment
or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to
consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not
to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have
contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court
exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the
question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have
committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the
judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific
direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions
issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the
court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead
of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the
power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by
the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in
mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts
exercising contempt of court jurisdiction "that it has exceeded its powers
in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same
without proper adjudication of the dispute" in its entirety can be
avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the
party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions
is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round
of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the
majesty and image of courts.
***
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to
hold that the judgment/order passed by the High Court was without
jurisdiction. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment/order
under challenge is set aside. The petition filed by the writ petitioners
for taking action for contempt of court against the respondents is
dismissed."
V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju4
10. The Supreme Court observed that the position of law is that
in contempt proceedings no further directions could be issued by the
Court. If it is found that there is a violation of the order passed by the
Court, the Court may punish the contemnor; otherwise, notice of
contempt is to be discharged. The order passed in the contempt petition
could not be a supplemental order to the main order granting relief.
(2004) 13 SCC 610
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran5
11. In this case the Supreme Court held as follows:
"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish
for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the
Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic
power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual
charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power
casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest
of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not,
adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination
of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which
disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond
the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or
enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions
which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly selfevident ought
to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether
there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided
issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered.
The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the
power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review
(2014) 3 SCC 373
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to
what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while
exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an
exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as
noticed above...."
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Raphael & Company6
12. The Division Bench of this Court, headed by the then Chief
Justice, in the above case dealt with the circumstances amounting to
wilful disobedience as follows:
"12. Thus, the legal position is settled that civil contempt jurisdiction is
meant to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court and maintain
the dignity of the Court. This jurisdiction is not be executed to
supplement or modify earlier judicial decisions. In contempt jurisdiction
Courts have to limit the determination to whether there has been willful
disobedience to a self-evident order. It is not permissible to travel beyond
the original judgment or enter into issues that were not previously
adjudicated. Directions that are not contained in the judgment cannot be
enforced through contempt proceedings. If an order is ambiguous,
seeking clarification through review or appeal is the appropriate remedy.
Thus, if a substantive relief that alters the original order or a new order
2025: KER 15854
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
is executed in civil contempt, proceedings will be beyond jurisdiction."
13. Wilful disobedience under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 arises only when non-compliance is deliberate,
conscious and intentional, with full knowledge of the order and the
ability to comply. Mere delay, administrative difficulty, bona fide
interpretation or inability to comply does not constitute wilful
disobedience, as consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niaz
Mohammad (supra) and Ashok Paper Kamgar Union (supra).
14. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the
respondents have already taken steps to identify the posts in accordance
with the directions issued by the Division Bench. Admittedly, from a
perusal of the records as well as the directions contained in the
impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that no willful
disobedience can be attributed to any of the respondents herein.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
Accordingly, no case for initiating contempt proceedings is made
out. The contempt case is, therefore, dismissed, and the rule nisi issued
against the respondents stands discharged.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
jjj
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
2026:KER:7700
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 3112 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
OP(CAT) NO. 14 OF 2024 DATED 08.01.2025
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.01.2025 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1 ST RESPONDENT FORWARDING ANNEXURE A1
JUDGMENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 29.01.2025 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE DETAILS OF RTI REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED NIL
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER TO
ANNEXURE A4 ON 14.10.2025
