The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan vs Rajesh Ahuja consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that lack of speed alone cannot be sufficient for a party to initiate contempt action on the ground of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court.
Facts
This Contempt Petition arose out of an interlocutory order passed in Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan Vs. Union of India and Ors. It was filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the Petitioner alleging wilful non-compliance of an Order of this Court. That Order was passed directing Respondent No. 2, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to place a status report before this Court within 6 weeks on certain issues under the National Food Security Act, 2013 (“NFSA”), based on a writ for a writ of mandamus regarding Respondent No. 2 to adhere to various interim orders passed by the Apex Court in K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr or any other direction/ order directing the Respondent No. 2 to disburse food grains to the beneficiaries eligible under NFSA without requiring the production of Aadhar or undergoing its authentication.
Procedural History
This Contempt Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the case of Puttuswamy (supra), dealing with similar issues raised by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground that the contentions raised by the Petitioner have been dealt with in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the Final Judgement in the case of Puttuswamy (supra), thus nothing survived in the Writ Petition.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that there had been persistent, continued, wilful and deliberate disobedience with the Order of this Court. It was also contended that the food authorities cannot insist upon either production of Aadhar or insist the eligible beneficiaries to apply for the same to provide subsidized food grains to them. It was further contended that the judgement in the case of Puttuswamy (Supra) dealt exclusively with Aadhar and was not relatable to the non-implementation of the NFSA. Relying on Prithawi Nahth Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., it was contended that dismissal of main relief is not a ground for non-obeyance of any interim orders.
Respondent: It was contended that the Apex Court had been passing Orders in the matter from time to time and the Respondent had been regularly sending compliance reports and status updates to the Government of India in this regard. It was also contended that the issue of the linkage of Aadhar with different schemes being run/ moderated by the government had been dealt with extensively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttuswamy (supra). Moreover, once this issue was dealt with by the Respondent, the Petitioner belatedly started raising an entirely different plea regarding implementation of the scheme u/s 14-18 of NFSA.
Observations by the Court
The Bench noted the question which arose for consideration was whether the Respondents could be held to be in wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court, thereby committing Contempt of Court.
It noted that even though this Court does not appreciate the delay on the part of the Respondents in carrying out of the directions of this Court, however, it is not sufficient to hold up the Respondents for committing Contempt of Court within the ambit of Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Lack of speed alone cannot be sufficient for it to act against the Respondent on the ground of deliberate and wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. Disobedience of only such a level which brings up the deliberate, wilful and intended action on the part of a person to disobey the order of the Court, it would classify as Contempt of Court.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that the issue raised in the public interest litigation (PIL) no longer survived in the light of the judgement delivered in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (supra). So, it did not find any reason for exercising contempt jurisdiction and dismissed this Contempt Petition.
Case: Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan vs Rajesh Ahuja
Citation: CONT.CAS(C) 138/2019
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 28th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
