'Shocking' : Supreme Court Slams J&K Admin For 16 Years' Refusal To Comply With HC Order On Regularisation Of Daily Wager

The Supreme Court of India made a scathing observation regarding the 16-year long delay by the UT of J&K in complying with the High Court's order, which directed the government to consider the case of the respondent daily wagers for regularization as per specific Government Order SRO 64 of 1994.

IN 2007, J&K High Court had passed the directions to appellants to consider the case of the respondent at par with other daily wage workers, who had received the benefits of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 back in 2006.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that, “What concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order of the learned Single Judge.”

The court further stated, “We consider the instant case fit for imposing exemplary costs on the delinquent officers, besides also recommending strong disciplinary actions against them.”

Contempt—Willful Disobedience—Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, in absence of specific directions or orders.

sclaw.in

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S. 12--Criminal contempt-Posting of derogatory remarks against Judge of High Court on social media/ facebook-Appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month—Held; it was not a case where the contempt action should have been taken against the appellant who is an Advocate—Impugned order of High Court set aside.

sclaw.in

Contempt--When the court either suo motu or on a motion or a reference, decides to take action and initiate proceedings for contempt, it assumes jurisdiction to punish for contempt--The exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt commences with the initiation of a proceeding for contempt and if the order is passed not discharging the rule issued in contempt proceedings, it would be an order or decision in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt--Against such order, appeal would be maintainable.

sclaw.in