Recently, the Uttarakhand High Court held that there was no wilful disobedience of its earlier order directing issuance of a vigilance clearance to the petitioner for his deputation to AIIMS Rajkot. The Court was dealing with two writ petitions alleging contempt against the respondents for allegedly failing to comply with its directions in a previous judgment. Emphasising that "every disobedience is not contempt," the Court concluded that the intention to defy a judicial order must be evident to attract contempt jurisdiction.
The petitioner was employed at IIM Kashipur and was under suspension when he was selected for deputation as Registrar at AIIMS Rajkot. While the suspension was stayed by the High Court in earlier proceedings, the petitioner alleged that he was not relieved from service and the respondents withheld his vigilance clearance, preventing him from joining his new role. In response, he approached the Court seeking contempt action for non-compliance with its order that had directed issuance of the said clearance.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite a categorical direction from the Court on an earlier occasion, the vigilance clearance was not issued in the prescribed format. He argued that alterations were made to the format, particularly in the certification of integrity, which led to the rejection of the petitioner’s joining at AIIMS Rajkot. The petitioner pressed solely for contempt proceedings, having given up other reliefs in the petition.
Whereas, the respondents contended that they had issued the vigilance clearance in the prescribed format, along with necessary factual disclosures. They maintained that while the certificate did not affirm integrity due to pending disciplinary proceedings, it stated that “integrity will be certified accordingly in due course.” The respondents further argued that there was no intention to defy the Court’s orders and that the clearance was furnished as directed, along with the earlier court order in support.
The Court carefully analysed its earlier direction and noted that the vigilance clearance had indeed been issued, albeit with factual narration regarding the pending inquiry. It emphasised that, “Every disobedience is not contempt. In order to bring a breach of the Court’s order within the realm of contempt, it should be wilful disobedience. The intention is very important for it.”
The Court found that there was no deliberate or intentional defiance of its directive and the respondents had complied in substance by issuing the certificate.
Concluding that no wilful disobedience had occurred, the High Court declined to proceed with contempt and disposed of the petitions accordingly. It reiterated that the contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the absence of conscious disregard of judicial authority.
Case Title: Vinay Sharma Vs. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay
Case No.: Civil Contempt Petition No.360 of 2024
Coram: Justice Ravindra Maithani
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. K.H. Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Digvijay Nath Dubey, Jagdish Singh Bisht
Picture Source :
