ANITA KUMARI vs SANJEEV KHIRWAR,IAS, COMMISSIONER, MCD on 6 November 2026

1. Israr Ahmad Khan vs. Amarnath Prasad & Ors., reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC

322. The relevant paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are as follows :

6. If only the story were to end there. The MD, by another Letter dated 06.10.2025, informed the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government that a Review Petition had been filed against the Order dated 20.05.2025, but ‘a proposal for approval of the creation of supernumerary post of Godown Keeper, in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.05.2025, is being prepared and submitted separately so that in the event of a final decision on the petition not being in favor of the Federation, prompt further action can be taken.’ Lo and behold, the implementation of Order dated 20.05.2025 was sought to be and made conditional on the outcome of a Review Petition. We must unequivocally state herein that while no fetter could be placed on preferring a Review Petition, it was the duty of the alleged contemnors to first comply with the Order. Depending on the outcome of the Review Petition, further steps/adjustment could have possibly taken place. But, it was not open to the alleged contemnors to not comply with an Order of this Court on the mere filing of a Review Petition, which, at the deliberate cost of repetition, remains defective due to want of rectification by the concerned Review Petitioner.

7. Incredibly, the Affidavit also states that if the Court ‘does not find merit in the review petition’, immediate steps to comply will be taken ‘as the logistical hurdles have been figured out’! Therefore, it is quite clear that, at least as on date, the alleged contemnors could very well have purged the contempt but chosen not to do so.

8. In the above circumstances, we were of the view that Charge(s) ought to be framed against the alleged contemnors as they have all but admitted to being in contempt while offering inexcusable justifications for non-compliance.

9. While we have no doubt, been proponents of justice being tempered with mercy, incidents like this seriously make us question whether the ‘liberal’ jurisprudence on contempt requires a serious re-look. Such issue, having come to our attention, will definitely be gone into, in detail, in a more appropriate case.

28. The (alleged) continuing contumacious conduct of the defaulting party is sought to be justified on the mere production of a Diary/Filing/Stamp Reporting Number showing that an appeal has been preferred, so as to obtain multiple adjournments in contempt matters.

29. We, in no uncertain terms, deprecate these practices. It is felt that by such modus operandi, disobedient litigants act brazenly which has the further effect of bringing down the authority and majesty of the Courts and the rule of law, interfering in the administration of justice. The same may well, in certain situations, border on criminal contempt.

30. The High Courts should deal with such unscrupulous litigants, moreso when they happen to be ‘State’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, or like bodies, with an iron hand. Unless the High Courts, so also this Court deal with these aspects firmly, we run the clear risk of erosion of the unflinching faith that the ordinary litigants of this country repose in the Judiciary at all levels. It is the solemn duty of all of us manning the Courts across the hierarchy to ensure that the public faith never wavers. PROCEDURAL DIRECTIONS:

31. Registry to forthwith place Review Petition bearing Diary No.57124/20252 before the appropriate Bench, after obtaining due permission from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. A copy of this Judgement shall be placed with that Review Petition. 32. Copies of this Judgment be also circulated to the Union Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training; the Chief Secretaries to all State Governments, Union Territory Administrations and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with a direction to take note of what we have stated above, in respect of Contempt Petitions, whether pending before this Court or the High Courts, where officers stand arrayed as individuals. They are at liberty to transmit this Judgment onward as deemed fit to other officers and concerned persons.

2. Reena Kumari & Ors. Vs. Praveen Kumar reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1181. The relevant paras 22, 23 and 24 are as follows :

22. The State being a model employer, occupies a position of trust vis-à- vis its employees. It is not merely a litigating party that this Court has repeatedly affirmed. A model employer is expected to honour court orders not because it has no choice but respecting the rule of law and the legitimate claims of those who serve it. The State's conduct in this case fell far short of that expectation and made an unsuccessful attempt to carry out the directions based on misunderstanding.

23. It is a matter of concern that clear and final judicial directions could remain unimplemented for thirteen years, compelling persons of modest means to pursue litigation up to this Court. Every year of delay meant a year of lost seniority, lost emoluments, and lost dignity for these women. The human cost of institutional non-compliance is rarely counted, but it is real and it is heavy.

24. We therefore call upon the State of Uttar Pradesh and commend this as a general principle to all State governments and public authorities, to treat compliance with judicial directions not as a burden to be resisted or delayed, but as a constitutional obligation to be discharged promptly, particularly when the directions concern the service rights of employees. Institutional introspection in this regard is not optional; in fact it is necessary. Appropriate administrative mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that directions of courts are monitored, tracked, and complied with within the time prescribed by the court. The State is expected to take note of the same and institute a framework to fix accountability on erring officials whose non-compliance results in obstruction in access to justice. Therefore, this order be communicated to the highest administrative authorities for introspection, and the immediate development of the necessary compliance mechanism.

3. Baradakanta Mishra vs. Bhimsen Dixit reported as MANU/SC/0067/1972.

4. K.N. Agrawal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as MANU/UP/1098/1991.

5. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors., reported as MANU/AP/0258/1987. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was made available to the respondents only on 30.10.2026. He further submits that the respondents have decided to assail the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition and would, therefore, require two weeks' further time. He accordingly requests that the matter may be taken up after two weeks. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is pertinent to note that when the matter was taken up on 16.10.2026, in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court granting three weeks' time to the respondents for compliance, the matter was adjourned and listed for today for reporting ‘complete compliance’. The request now made on behalf of the respondents for grant of further time is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the applicant. We find no justification to defer the matter any further. It is pertinent to note that despite sufficient time having elapsed, including the period granted by the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents have failed to take any effective steps towards ensuring compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal. Rather, they are seeking further time on the ground that they intend to assail the order of the Hon’ble High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The order passed by this Tribunal in the Original Application has attained finality, having been upheld at all subsequent stages, including before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the order passed by this Tribunal in the present Contempt Petition has also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In these circumstances, the mere intention to challenge, or even the filing of, a Special Leave Petition cannot, in the absence of any order staying the operation of the directions, be a ground to defer compliance with the same. Accordingly, list the present Contempt Petition on 20.11.2026 for reporting complete compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal. In the event complete compliance is not reported on the next date of hearing, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), shall remain present before this Tribunal, either through virtual mode or in physical mode. Dr. Sumeet Jerath Member (A) Harvinder Kaur Oberoi Member (J) Nisha Kumari ( steno 'c' )