Recently, the Allahabad High Court examined the consequences of ignoring judicial directions merely because an application seeking modification or recall of an order remains pending. While dealing with a contempt petition arising from the non-implementation of a teacher's salary order, the Court highlighted the mounting burden on constitutional courts, noting that judges often handle between 400 and 800 cases in a single day. Despite such overwhelming caseloads, the Court remarked, people continue to expect judges to function like "super robots" while ensuring timely disposal of cases.
The controversy arose from allegations that an interim order passed in April 2022 concerning a teacher's salary had not been implemented by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur. Defending the delay, the State argued that a stay vacation application had been filed against the order. The Court, however, found the explanation inadequate. It noted that the existence of an application seeking recall, modification, or vacation of an order does not permit authorities to suspend compliance on their own. The dispute, therefore, centred on whether a public authority could ignore a subsisting judicial direction merely because proceedings challenging that order were pending before the Court.
Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that allowing litigants or authorities to decide for themselves whether court orders deserve compliance would seriously erode judicial authority. Referring to the immense pressure faced by constitutional courts, the judge noted that around 400, 500, 600 and sometimes more than 800 cases are listed before a judge in a single day, making delays in disposal inevitable.
The Court remarked, “Still people all around may expect such overburdened judges to become ever-working super robots or super computers or superhuman beings.” The Bench further stressed that a subsisting court order remains binding unless set aside and warned that treating pending applications as a licence to disobey judicial directions would undermine the rule of law.
Finding that the 2022 order had remained unimplemented for nearly four years, the Court held the District Inspector of Schools guilty of contempt and directed that the matter be listed on July 8 for framing charges, while permitting him to purge the contempt by complying with the order.
Case Title: Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. Sri Ashok Nath Tiwari, the District Inspector of Schools
Case No.: Contempt Application (Civil) No. - 6468 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Kshitij Shailendra
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
