Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NOS. 195-196 OF 2012

    IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4318 AND 4319 OF 2012

Priya Gupta & Anr.      ...Appellants

Versus   

Addl. Secy. Ministry of Health &      ...Respondents Family Welfare  & Ors.

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter  Kumar, J.

1. While  disposing  of  the  Civil Appeal  No.  4318  of  2012   

titled  Priya Gupta  v. State  of Chhatisgarh  & Ors., the  Court  

1

Page 2

not only noticed  breach  of time schedule  as  well as  various   

other  irregularities  that  were  committed  by  the  various   

stakeholders,  but  also  returned  a  finding  as  to  failure  of   

the  performance  of  duties  and  obligations  by  the   

authorities  in accordance  with law as  stated  by this  Court.   

The  Court  noticed  that  the  case  in  hand  was  a  clear   

example  of  calculated  tampering  with  the  schedule   

specified  under  the  regulations,  and  the  judgments  of the   

Court  with  a  clear  intention  to  grant  admission  to  less   

meritorious  candidates  over  candidates  of  higher  merit.   

To  put  it  simply,  it  was  a  case  of  favouritism  and   

arbitrariness.   The  case  in  hand  also  demonstrates  how  

either  way the  career  of  the  students  of  higher  merit has   

been  jeopardised  by  the  abuse  and  manipulation  of  

provided  procedure.   While  directing  initiation  of  

proceedings  under  the  provisions  of  the  Contempt  of  

Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) held as under:-

4. “We have categorically returned  a finding  that  all  the  relevant  stakeholders  have  failed  to  perform  their  duty/obligation  in  accordance  with  law.  Where  the  time  

2

Page 3

schedules  have  not  been  complied  with,  and  rule  of  merit  has  been  defeated,   there  nepotism  and  manipulation  have  prevailed.   The  stands  of  various   authorities  are  at  variance  with  each   other and none  admits to fault.  Thus, it is  imperative for this Court to ensure  proper   implementation  of judgments  of this Court   and the regulations  of the Medical Council  of  India  as  well  as  not  to  overlook  the   arbitrary and colourable exercise of power  by the concerned  authorities/colleges.

5. Therefore,  we  hereby  direct  initiation  of  proceedings  against  the  following  under   the  provisions  of  the  Contempt  of  Courts   Act,  1971.    Let  notice  be  issued  to  the   following,  to  show cause  why they be  not   punished  in accordance  with law.

a.  Additional  Secretary, Ministry of Health   & Family Welfare, Union of India.

b.  Dr.  S.L.  Adile,  Director,  Medical  Education.

c. Dean of the Jagdalpur College.

d.  Dr.  M.S.  Banjan,  Member  of  the   Selection Committee.

e.  Dr.  P.D.  Agarwal,  Member  of  the   Selection Committee.

f.  Shri  Padmakar  Sasane,  Member  of  the   Selection Committee.

g. Director  General,  Directorate  of Health   Services, Union of India.

5. Notice be issued  returnable  in two weeks,   on which day  the  matter  shall  be  listed   

3

Page 4

before  this Court.   Registry shall maintain   separate  file for that purpose.

6.   All  concerned  authorities  are  hereby  directed  to  carry  out  the  directions  and   orders  contained  in  this  judgment,   particularly paragraphs  30  and  31 of the  judgment  forthwith.   The  directions  shall  be applicable for the academic year 2012- 2013 itself.

54. A copy of  this  judgment  shall  be  sent  to  all  concerned  authorities,  forthwith,  for  strict   compliance  and  adherence,  without  demur  and   default.

55.   Both  the  appeals  are  disposed  of  with  the   above directions.”

2. In furtherance  to  the  judgment  dated  8 th May, 2012,  

the  Court  initiated  proceedings  against  the  above   

defaulting  persons  under  the  Act and  directed  issuance  of  

notice.   Upon appearance,  time was prayed for on behalf of   

the  contemnors  to  file their  reply affidavits  and  after  they  

were  filed,  the  contemnors  were  heard  at  some  length  by  

the  Court.   The stand  taken  by the  respective contemnors   

is  distinct  and  independent.    However,  the  stand  of  

contemnors  “C” to  “F” is  somewhat  common,  therefore,  it  

would be appropriate  for the Court to deal with the case  of   

4

Page 5

these  contemnors  together.    The  case  of contemnors  ‘A’  

and  ‘G’  is  to  be  considered  together  and  finally that  of   

contemnor  ‘B’  will  be  dealt  with  separately.   First  and   

foremost,  we  would  deal  with  the  case  of  Dr.  S.L.  Adile,   

whose  daughter  Akansha  Adile  is  the  direct  beneficiary of   

this entire process.    In the affidavit filed by Dr. Adile, it has   

been  averred  that  he  was  working  as  a  Professor  of  

Ophthalmology in the Medical College,  Raipur till 1 st August,   

2006  and  Dean  thereafter  in  the  same  college.    The  

Director  of  Medical  Education,  Chhatisgarh  (Dr.  Bhola)   

retired on 31st August,  2006 and being the senior,  Dr. Adile   

was  asked  to  relieve  Dr.  Bhola,  on  8 th September,  2006  

temporarily.  This  is  how he  came  to  be  appointed  as  the   

Director  of  Medical  Education.    The  findings  recorded  in  

the  order  against  him which includes  violation  of schedule,   

moulding  the  process  of  selection  to  select  his  daughter   

and  actually providing  her  a  seat  in  the  Medical  College,   

Raipur  has  not  been  disputed.    However,  it is stated  that   

he tenders  an unconditional apology to the Court for all the   

acts  of  omission  and  commission  mentioned  in  the  order   

5

Page 6

dated  8th May, 2012.    He prays for the  mercy of the  Court   

on  the  ground  that  he  was  under  suspension  for  last  two  

years  i.e.  since  23 rd July, 2010  and  has  suffered  already.  

His daughter  was also  asked  to pay Rs. 5 lakhs,  if she  was   

to continue  her course  in terms of the order  dated  8 th May,  

2012, and therefore,  he prays for discharge.

3. Mr.  Mukul  Rohtagi,  the  learned  senior  counsel   

appearing  for  Dr.  S.L.  Adile  argued  in  principle  that  the   

Court  may take  a  lenient  view and  discharge  the  notice  of   

contempt  against  the  contemnor  in  view  of  his   

unconditional,  unqualified  apology  being  tendered  at  the   

very first instance.    The apology tendered  is bona  fide and,   

thus,  should  be  accepted  by the  Court.   Explanation  to   

Section  12(1)  places  an  obligation  upon  the  Court  to   

consider  apology  in  a  very objective  manner  and  further   

provides that  the Court shall not reject the same merely on   

the  ground  of it being  qualified  or  conditional  if it is made   

bonafidely.   It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  the  Secretary,   

Ministry of  Health  has  specifically disputed  that  the  letter   

6

Page 7

dated  8th August,  2006  was not  issued  by the  Ministry and   

is  a  manipulated  one.    This  is  the  letter  that  has  been   

relied  upon  by Dr. Adile.   Of course,  subsequently the  said   

stand was given up by him

4. Without  prejudice  to  the  above and  in the  alternative,   

the  contention  raised  is  that  every  contempt,  whether   

initiated  on application of a party or suo motu by the Court,  

has  to  be  a  result  of  wilful disobedience  of  the  orders  of   

the Court.  Wilful disobedience  must be proved as  a matter   

of fact.  The directions  or guidelines  issued  by this Court for   

general  implementation  cannot  invite  proceedings  under   

the Act, if they are not strictly adhered  to.  Such guidelines   

may not be within the knowledge  of a party and,  thus,  their   

non-compliance  may  not  necessarily  be  a  wilful  

disobedience  of the order of the Court bringing the case  of   

a  contemnor  within  the  rigours  of  Section  12  of  the  Act.   

Contempt  proceedings  can  be  initiated  when  an  action  is  

between the parties  to a lis and not where the Court issues   

general directions.   

7

Page 8

5. Tendering  an  apology  is  not  a  satisfactory  way  of  

resolving  contempt  proceedings.   An apology tendered  at   

the  very initial  stage  of  the  proceedings  being  bona  fide   

and  preferably unconditional  would  normally persuade  the   

Court  to  accept  such  apology,  if  this  would  not  leave  a   

serious  scar  on  the  dignity/authority  of  the  Court  and   

interfere with the administration of justice under the orders   

of the Court.   

6. ‘Bona  fide’ is an expression  which has  to be examined   

in the  context of a given case.   It cannot  be understood  in  

the  abstract.   The  attendant  circumstances,  behaviour  of  

the  contemnor  and  the  remorse  or  regret  on  his  part  are   

some of the relevant considerations  which would weigh with  

the Court in deciding such  an issue.   Where, persistently, a   

person  has  attempted  to  over-reach  the  process  of  Court   

and has  persisted  with the illegal act done  in wilful violation   

to the orders  of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to   

accept  unconditional  apology  even  if  it  is  made  at  the   

threshold  of the  proceedings.   It is not  necessary for us  to   

8

Page 9

examine in any greater  detail the factual matrix of the case   

since  the  disobedience,  manipulation  of  procedure  and   

violation  of  the  schedule  prescribed  under  the  orders  of  

the  Court  is  an  admitted  position.   All  that  we  have  to   

examine is whether the apology tendered  is bona fide when  

examined  in  light  of  the  attendant  circumstances  and   

whether  it  will be  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  accept  the   

same.

7. The  facts  which  will  weigh  with  the  Court  while  

considering  acceptance  of  an  apology  are  the   

contemptuous  conduct,  the  extent  to  which  the  order  of  

the Court has  been  violated,  irresponsible  acts  on the part   

of  the  contemnor  and  the  degree  of  interference  in  the   

administration  of justice,  which thereby cause  prejudice  to   

other  parties.    An apology tendered,  even  at  the  outset,   

has  to  be  bona  fide  and  should  be  demonstrative  of  

repentance  and  sincere  regret  on  the  part  of  the   

contemnor,  lest  the  administration  of  justice  be  crudely  

interfered  with  by  a  person  with  impunity.   The  basic   

9

Page 10

ingredients  of the rule of law have to be enforced,  whatever   

be  the  consequence  and  all  persons  are  under  a   

fundamental  duty to  maintain  the  rule of law.   An apology  

which is  not  bonafide  and  has  been  tendered  to  truncate   

the  process  of law with the  ulterior  motive of escaping  the   

consequences  of  such  flagrant  violation  of  orders  of  the   

Court  and  causes  discernible  disrespect  to  the  course  of  

administration  of  justice,  cannot  be  permitted.   The  Court   

has  to  draw a  balance  between  cases  where  tendering  of   

an apology is sufficient,  and cases  where it is necessary to   

inflict  punishment  on  the  contemnor.   An  attempt  to   

circumvent the orders  of the Court is derogatory to the very  

dignity of the Court and administration  of justice.   A person   

who  attempts  to  salvage  himself  by showing  ignorance  of  

the  Court’s  order,  of  which  he  quite  clearly  had  the   

knowledge,  would  again  be  an  attempt  on  his  part  to   

circumvent  the  process  of  law.  Tendering  a  justification   

would be inconsistent  with the  concept  of an apology.   An  

apology which is neither  sincere  nor satisfactory and is not   

made  at  the  appropriate  stage  may not  provide  sufficient   

10

Page 11

grounds  to the Court for the acceptance  of the same.   It is   

also  an  accepted  principle  that  one  who  commits   

intentional  violations  must  also  be  aware  of  the   

consequences  of  the  same.   One  who  tenders  an   

unqualified  apology would  normally not  render  justification   

for the  contemptuous  conduct.    In any case,  tendering  of  

an  apology  is  a  weapon  of  defence  to  purge  the  guilt  of  

offence  by contemnor.    It is not  intended  to  operate  as  a   

universal  panacea  to  frustrate  the  action  in  law,  as  the   

fundamental  principle  is that  rule  of law and  dignity of the   

Court must prevail.    

8. In the case  of In Re Sanjeev Datta & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC  

619],  this  Court  while  declining  to  accept  an  apology  

tendered  by the contemnor observed that any conduct  that   

is  designed  to  or  is  suggestive  of  challenging  the  crucial   

balance  of power devised by the Constitution,  is an attempt   

to  subvert  the  rule  of  law and  is  an  invitation  to  anarchy.  

The  institution  entrusted  with the  task  of  interpreting  and   

administering  the  law is  the  judiciary,  whose  view on  the   

11

Page 12

subject  is  made  legally  final  and  binding  on  all  till  it  is  

changed  by  a  higher  Court  or  by  permissible  legislative  

measures.   Under  a  constitutional  government,  such  final   

authority has  to vest in some institution otherwise there will  

be  a  chaos.    With these  observations,  the  Court  declined   

to  accept  the  apology where  statements  had  been  made   

with a  malicious  attempt  to  cast  aspersions  and  attribute   

motives to the Court and the same were made knowingly by  

the contemnor.    At this stage,  we may also  notice  another   

judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  All  Bengal  Excise   

Licensees’  Association  v. Raghabendra  Singh & Ors. [(2007)   

11 SCC 374],  where  the  Court  while declining  to  accept  an   

apology,  punished  the  contemnors  for  disobeying  the   

orders  of  the  Court.   The  Court  noticed  that  the   

respondents  were  senior  officers  and  were  expected  to   

know that  under  the  constitutional  scheme  of the  country,  

the  orders  of  the  Court  have  to  be  obeyed  implicitly and   

that  orders  of this Court and of any Court cannot  be trifled   

with.   The  Court  returned  a  finding  that  the  officers  had   

12

Page 13

acted  deliberately to  subvert  the  orders  of the  High Court   

evidently and observed :-

“41. All Respondents  1-4  are  senior  and   experienced  officers  and  must  be  presumed  to  know  that  under  the   constitutional  scheme  of  this  country  orders  of  the  High  Court  have  to  be  obeyed  implicitly and  that  orders  of  this   Court—for  that  matter  any  court  should   not be trifled with. We have already found   hereinabove  that  they  have  acted   deliberately to  subvert  the  orders  of  the   High  Court  evidently.  It  is  equally  necessary  to  erase  an  impression  which  appears  to  be  gaining  ground  that  the   mantra  of  unconditional  apology  is  a  complete  answer  to  violations  and   infractions  of the orders  of the High Court   or of this Court. We, therefore,  hold them  guilty of contempt of court and do hereby  censure  their  conduct.  Though  a  copy of  this  order  could  be  sent  which shall form  part  of  the  annual  confidential  record  of  service  of  each  of  the  said  officers,  we  refrain  from doing  so  by taking  a  lenient   view of the  matter  considering  the  future   prospects  of  the  officers.  As  already  stated,  the  officers  shall  not  indulge  in  any adventurous  act and strictly obey the   orders  passed  by the  courts  of  law. The  civil appeal stands  allowed. Though this is  a  fit  case  for  awarding  exemplary costs,   again  taking  a  lenient  view,  we  say  no   costs.”

13

Page 14

9. The government  departments  are  no  exception  to the   

consequences  of  wilful disobedience  of  the  orders  of  the   

Court.   Violation  of  the  orders  of  the  Court  would  be  its   

disobedience  and  would  invite  action  in  accordance  with  

law.   The  orders  passed  by this  Court  are  the  law of  the   

land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.   No   

Court  or  Tribunal  and  for  that  matter  any other  authority  

can  ignore  the  law stated  by this  Court.    Such  obedience   

would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise   

there  would  be  confusion  in the  administration  of  law and   

the  respect  for law would irretrievably suffer.  There  can  be   

no hesitation in holding that  the law declared  by the higher   

court  in  the  State  is  binding  on  authorities  and  tribunals   

under  its superintendence  and they cannot  ignore  it.   This   

Court  also  expressed  the  view  that  it  had  become   

necessary to reiterate  that  disrespect  to the constitutional   

ethos  and  breach  of discipline  have a grave impact  on  the   

credibility  of  judicial  institution  and  encourages  chance   

litigation.  It  must  be  remembered  that  predictability  and   

certainty are  important  hallmarks  of  judicial  jurisprudence   

14

Page 15

developed  in this  country, as  discipline  is  sine qua  non  for  

effective and efficient  functioning  of the  judicial system.   If  

the  Courts  command  others  to  act  in accordance  with the   

provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  to  abide  by the  rule  of   

law,  it  is  not  possible  to  countenance  violation  of  the   

constitutional  principle  by those  who  are  required  to  lay  

down the  law. [Ref.  East  India  Commercial  Companies  Ltd.   

v.  Collector  of  Customs [AIR  1962  SC  1893]  and  Official   

Liquidator v. Dayanand  & Ors [(2008) 10 SCC 1].

10. These  very principles  have to be strictly adhered  to by  

the  executive  and  instrumentalities  of  the  State.    It  is   

expected  that  none  of these  institutions  should  fall out  of  

line  with the  requirements  of  the  standard  of  discipline  in  

order  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  institution  and  ensure   

proper administration of justice.  

11. From the above principle,  it is clear  that  consideration   

of  an  apology  as  contemplated  under  explanation  to   

Section12(1)  of the Act is not  a panacea  to avoid action  in  

law  universally.    While  considering  the  apology  and  its   

15

Page 16

acceptance,  the  Court  inter  alia  considers  a)  the  conduct   

of the contemnor  prior and subsequent  to the tendering of  

apology.   If the  conduct  is  contemptuous,  prejudicial  and   

has  harmed  the  system and  other  innocent  persons  as  a   

whole,  it would  be  a  factor  which would  weigh  against  the   

contemnors;  and b) the stage  and time when such  apology  

is tendered.   

12. In  light  of  the  above  principles,  if one  examines  the   

conduct  of Dr. S.L. Adile,  he  is a  person  who cannot  plead   

ignorance  to  the  directions  of  this  Court  inasmuch  as  he   

was  the  officiating  Director  and  responsible  for  making   

admissions  not  only to  the  college  in  question,  but  to  all  

the medical colleges  in the State  of Chhattisgarh.   It  was  

expected of him to conduct  the admissions  strictly on merit,   

transparently  and  in  adherence  to  the  schedule  and   

directions  contained  in  the  judgments  of  this  Court.    He   

attempted  to  violate  the  same  with  impunity.    He  

manipulated  the  entire  process  of  admission  and  directed   

his  subordinates  to  manage  admissions  of  appellants,   

16

Page 17

including  his  daughter,  and  on  the  other  hand  misguided   

the  Ministry of  Health,  Government  of  India.    There  was  

flagrant  violation  of  the  orders  of  the  Court  which  has   

proved prejudicial not  only to  the  system of admission,  but   

even  to  the  deserving  students  who in the  order  of  merit  

were  entitled  to  get  those  seats.   No  advertisement  was   

effected.    There  is  nothing  on  record  to  show  that  any  

other  candidate  had  been  informed  of  the  date  of  

admission.   At the  eleventh  hour  on 30 th September,  2006,   

the  last  date  for  admission,  very cleverly admission  of  the   

two appellants  was managed  by him.    

13. As already noticed,  the  violations  are  admitted  on  the   

part  of  this  contemnor.   The  tendering  of  apology by him,  

though  at  the  initial  stage  of  the  hearings,  cannot  be   

accepted  by the  Court  inasmuch  as  violation  of the  orders   

of  the  Court  is  wilful,  intentional,  and  prejudicial.    Such  

conduct,  not  only has  the adverse  effect  on the process  of   

admissions  and  disturbs  the  faith  of  people  in  the   

administration  of justice,  but  also  lowers  the  dignity of the   

17

Page 18

Court by unambiguously conveying that orders  of this Court,   

its  directions  and  prescribed  procedure  can  be   

manipulated  or  circumvented  so  as  to  frustrate  the  very  

object  of such  orders  and  directions,  thereby undermining   

the  dignity  of  the  Court.  Administration  of  justice  is  a  

matter  which  cannot  be  ignored  by  the  Court  and  the   

acceptance  of  apology  tendered  by the  contemnor  would  

amount  to  establishing  a  principle  that  such  serious   

violations  would  not  entail  any consequences  in  law. This   

would,  thus  encourage  repetition  of  such  offences,  rather   

than  discouraging  or  preventing  others  from  committing   

offences  of similar nature  as  it would have no preventive or   

deterrent  effect on persons  for committing such offences  in  

future.    Thus,  it  is  not  a  case  where  the  Court  should   

extend mercy of discharging  the accused  by acceptance  of  

apology,  as  it  would  amount  to  encouraging  similar  

behaviour.

14. The contemnor, Dr. Adile, while heavily relying upon the   

factum of his having been  placed  under  suspension  by the   

18

Page 19

disciplinary  authority  as  well  as  the  direction  to  his   

daughter  to  pay Rs.5  lacs  for  continuing  with the  medical   

course  to  which  she  was  admitted,  has  argued  that  the   

Court  should  take  a  lenient  view and  accept  the  apology.  

We are  of  the  view that  such  a  contention  cannot  be  of   

much  advantage  to  the  contemnor.   These  are  not  the   

relevant  factors  for  acceptance  of  an  apology,   however,   

they  may  be  of  some  consideration  while  imposing  the   

punishment.

15. Now,  we  shall  proceed  to  discuss  the  legal  issues   

raised  on  behalf of the  contemnor  that  in such  cases,  the   

proceedings  under the Act cannot  be taken recourse  to.

16. It  is  true  that  Section  12  of  the  Act  contemplates   

disobedience  of  the  orders  of  the  Court  to  be  wilful  and   

further  that  such  violation  has  to  be  of a  specific  order  or   

direction of the Court.  To contend  that  there  cannot  be an   

initiation  of  contempt  proceedings  where  directions  are  of  

a general  nature  as  it would not  only be impracticable,  but   

even impossible  to regulate  such  orders  of the Court, is an   

19

Page 20

argument  which  does  not  impress  the  Court.    As  already  

noticed,  the Constitution has  placed  upon the judiciary, the   

responsibility  to  interpret  the  law  and  ensure  proper   

administration  of  justice.  In  carrying  out  these   

constitutional  functions,  the  Courts  have  to  ensure  that   

dignity  of  the  Court,  process  of  Court  and  respect  for  

administration of justice is maintained.   Violations  which are   

likely  to  impinge  upon  the  faith  of  the  public  in  

administration  of  justice  and  the  Court  system  must  be   

punished,  to  prevent  repetition  of such  behaviour  and  the   

adverse  impact  on  public  faith.  With  the  development  of  

law, the Courts have issued directions  and even spelt out in  

their  judgments,  certain  guidelines,  which  are  to  be   

operative  till  proper  legislations  are  enacted.   The  

directions  of the Court which are to provide transparency in  

action  and  adherence  to  basic  law and  fair  play must  be   

enforced  and  obeyed  by all concerned.   The  law declared   

by this Court whether in the form of a substantive judgment   

inter se  a party or are directions  of a general  nature  which   

are intended  to achieve the constitutional  goals  of equality  

20

Page 21

and  equal  opportunity  must  be  adhered  to  and  there   

cannot  be  an  artificial  distinction  drawn  in  between  such   

class  of  cases.   Whichever  class  they  may belong  to,  a   

contemnor  cannot  build an argument  to the effect that  the   

disobedience  is of a general  direction  and not  of a specific   

order issued  inter se parties.   Such distinction, if permitted,   

shall be opposed  to the basic rule of law.   

17. The  directions  which  have  been  issued  in  the  cases   

referred  to  in  the  main  judgment  clearly  provide  for  

admission  to  medical  courses  in  order  of  merit,  for  the   

process  of admission  to  be  transparent  and  fair,  and  that   

there  must  be  strict  adherence  to  the  time  schedule   

specified  in  the  judgments.    The  purpose  of  this  is  to   

ensure  that  arbitrariness  and  discrimination  do  not  creep   

into  this  process,  and  equal  opportunity is ensured  to  the   

eligible candidates  applying to the medical courses  in a just   

and fair manner.    

18. These  directions  are  intended  to  serve  a  greater   

public  purpose  and  are  expected  to  be  within  the   

21

Page 22

knowledge  of all concerned  persons  besides  the  fact  that   

the law declared  by this Court is deemed to be known to all  

concerned.    The  violation  of  general  directions  issued  by  

this Court would attract  the rigours  of the provisions  of the   

Act.    Whether  for  such  violation  or  non-compliance,  the   

Court  would  punish  a  person  or  persons,  would  always  

depend  upon  the facts  and circumstances  of a given case.   

It is not possible  to provide any straight  jacket  formula that   

is  universally applicable  to  all  cases.   All that  we have  to   

examine  is  whether  the  apology  tendered  is  bona  fide,  

when examined in light of the attendant  circumstances  and   

that it will be in the interest  of justice to accept  the same.

19. This Court in the  case  of  Mohd Aslam v. Union  of India  

[(1994)  6  SCC 442]  observed  that  when  we speak  of  the   

rule  of  law as  a  characteristic  of  our  country,  no  man  is   

above  the  law but  that  here  every man,  whatever  be  his   

rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm  

and  amenable  to  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary  tribunals.   

Respect  for  law and  its  institutions  is  the  only assurance   

22

Page 23

that  can  hold  a  pluralist  nation  together.   One  should   

ensure  respect  for  law as  its  breach  will demolish  public   

faith in accepted  constitutional institutions  and weaken the   

peoples’  confidence  in  the  rule  of  law.   It  will  destroy  

respect  for the  rule of law and  the  authority of Courts  and   

will thus  seek  to  place  individual authority and  strength  of  

principles above the wisdom of law.   

20. The  provisions  of  the  Act  do  not  admit any discretion   

for  the  initiation  of  proceedings  under  the  Act  with  

reference  to  an  order  being  of  general  directions  or  a   

specific  order  inter  se the  parties.   The  sine  qua  non  to  

initiation  of  proceedings  under  the  Act  is  an  order  or   

judgment or direction of a Court and its wilful disobedience.   

Once  these  ingredients  are  satisfied,  the  machinery under   

the Act can be invoked by a party or even by the Court suo   

motu.  If the  contention  raised  on behalf of the  contemnor   

is accepted,  it will have inevitable  consequences  of hurting   

the very rule of law and, thus, the constitutional ethos.   The   

essence  of contempt jurisprudence  is to ensure  obedience   

23

Page 24

of orders  of the Court and, thus, to maintain the rule of law.  

History tells  us  how a State  is protected  by its  Courts  and   

an  independent  judiciary  is  the  cardinal  pillar  of  the   

progress  of  a  stable  government.   If over-enthusiastic   

executive attempts  to  belittle  the  importance  of  the  Court   

and  its  judgments  and  orders,  and  also  lowers  down  its   

prestige  and confidence  before  the people,  then greater  is   

the  necessity  for  taking  recourse  to  such  power  in  the   

interest  and  safety  of  the  public  at  large.   The  power  to   

punish  for  contempt  is  inherent  in  the  very nature  and   

purpose  of the Court of justice.   In our country, such  power   

is codified.  It serves at once  a dual purpose,  namely, as an   

aid  to  protect  the  dignity and  authority of  the  Court  and  

also  in aiding the enforcement  of civil remedies.   Looked  at   

from a wider perspective, contempt  power is also  a means   

for  ensuring  participation  in  the  judicial  process  and   

observance  of  rules  by  such  participants.   Once  the   

essentials  for  initiation  of  contempt  proceedings  are   

satisfied, the Court would initiate an action uninfluenced  by  

the  nature  of  the  direction  i.e.  as  to  whether  these   

24

Page 25

directions  were specific in a lis pending between the parties   

or were of general nature or were in rem.  

21. The  reliance  by the  contemnor  upon  the  judgment  of  

In  Re.  M.P.  Dwivedi  & Ors.  [(1996)  4  SCC 152],  does  not   

further  the  cause  of  the  contemnor.   On  the  contrary,  it  

supports  the view that  we are taking.   In this case,  despite   

the  judgment  of  this  Court,  the  accused  persons  were  

handcuffed  and  brought  in the  court  of learned  Magistrate   

who  was  a  young  judicial  officer.   Upon  initiation  of  

contempt  proceedings,  it  was  contended  that  the  officer   

was  not  aware  of  the  directions  issued  by  this  Court.   

Rejecting the plea of ignorance  of law, the Court returned  a   

clear  finding  that  there  was  default  on  the  part  of  the   

contemnor and disapproval of such conduct  was ordered to   

be  placed  on  their  personal  files.   However,  the  Court  did   

not  punish  them  primarily on  the  ground  that  they  were  

young  judicial  officers  and  had  ignored  the  order  of  the   

Court.   The  directions  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Prem  

Shankar  Shukla  v. Delhi Adminsitration  [(1980)  3 SCC 526]  

25

Page 26

issuing  guidelines  prohibiting  such  handcuffing  itself were,   

in  that  sense,  of  a  general  nature  and  this  Court  clearly  

held  that  they  were  required  to  be  obeyed  without   

exception.   

22. Equally,  the  contemnor  cannot  draw  any  advantage   

from  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Packraft   

(India)  Pvt.  Ltd.  through  its Director  V.S.  Mann  v. U.P.F.C.   

through  its M.D. R.M. Sethi  and  Others  [(1996)  1 SCC 304]   

as  that  was a judgment  on  its own facts  and  the  Court did  

not  state  any absolute  proposition  of law.  We may notice   

that in that case,  the applicant  had participated  in the sale   

of  the  property  which  was  alleged  to  have  been  sold   

contrary to the guidelines  issued  by the Court and had not   

taken  any  steps  during  that  period.   Since,  such  steps   

could  be  corrected  by adopting  the  procedure  of  judicial   

review, the Court did not initiate the contempt proceedings.   

The law is well settled that mere availability of another  legal   

proceeding  does  not  debar  invocation  of the  provisions  of  

the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act.   Even  where  execution   

26

Page 27

petitions  are  filed or an  order  of injunction  is issued  and  if  

during the course  of the proceedings,  the act or conduct  of   

a  non-applicant  may  be  such  which  would  invite  the   

proceedings  under  the  Act  then  such  proceedings  would  

not be debarred.    

23. As  already  noticed,  contempt  proceedings  are   

intended  to  ensure  compliance  of  the  orders  of  the  Court   

and  adherence  to  the  rule  of  law.   The  directions  are   

binding  and  must  be  obeyed  by  the  parties  and  all  

concerned  stricto  sensu.   In  fact,  the  directions  of  the   

present  kind  are  to  be  placed  at  a  higher  pedestal  as   

compared  to  cases  where  the  matter  is  inter  se between  

two  parties  to  the  lis as  they  are  intended  to  attain  a  

greater  purpose  and  ensure  adherence  to  rule  of law in a   

particular  process  which  otherwise  would  be  arbitrary and   

violative  of  constitutional  mandate.   In  the  case  of  Asha   

Sharma  v.  Pt  B.D.  Sharma  University  of  Health  Sciences   

[(2012) 7 SCC 389], this Court held as under :

27

Page 28

“25. Strict  adherence  to  the  time  schedule  has  again  been  a  matter  of  controversy before  the  courts.  The courts   have consistently taken  the  view that  the   schedule  is  sacrosanct  like  the  rule  of  merit  and  all  the  stakeholders  including   the  authorities  concerned  should  adhere   to  it  and  should  in  no  circumstances   permit  its  violation.  This,  in  our  opinion,   gives  rise  to  dual  problem.  Firstly,  it  jeopardises  the interest  and future  of the   students.  Secondly,  which  is  more  serious,  is  that  such  action  would  be  ex  facie  in  violation  of  the  orders  of  the   court, and therefore,  would invite wrath of  the  courts  under  the  provisions  of  the   Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971.  In  this   regard,  we may appropriately refer  to  the   judgments  of  this  Court  in  Priya  Gupta ,  State  of  Bihar v.  Sanjay  Kumar  Sinha ,  Medical  Council  of  India  v.  Madhu  Singh ,  GSF  Medical  and  Paramedical  Assn. v.  Assn. of Self Financing Technical Institutes   and  Christian  Medical  College  v.  State  of   Punjab .

26. The  judgments  of  this  Court  constitute  the  law of the  land  in terms of  Article  141  of  the  Constitution  and  the   regulations  framed by the  Medical Council  of India are  statutorily having the  force  of  law  and  are  binding  on  all  the  parties   concerned.  Various  aspects  of  the  admission  process  as  of now are  covered   either  by  the  respective  notifications   issued  by  the  State  Governments,   prospectus  issued  by the colleges  and,  in  any  case,  by  the  regulations  framed  by  the  Medical  Council  of  India.  There  is  no   

28

Page 29

reason  why every act of the authorities  be   not  done  as  per  the  procedure   prescribed  under  the  Rules  and  why due   records  thereof  be  not  maintained.  This  proposition  of law or this issue  is no more   res  integra  and  has  been  firmly stated  by  this  Court  in its  various  judgments  which  may  usefully  be  referred  at  this  stage.   (Ref.:  State  of  M.P. v.  Gopal  D.  Tirthani,  State  of  Punjab  v.  Dayanand  Medical   College  & Hospital,  Bharati  Vidyapeeth  v.  State  of  Maharashtra ,  Chowdhury  Navin   Hemabhai v.  State  of  Gujarat  and  Harish   Verma v. Ajay Srivastava.)”

24. In view of the  above established  principle,  we have no   

hesitation  in rejecting  even the  other  contention  raised  on   

behalf  of  the  contemnor.   Having  dealt  with  both  the   

contentions  raised  on  behalf  of  the  contemnor,  we  

conclude  that  the  contemnor,  Dr.  S.L.  Adile ,  has  wilfully  

violated  the  directions  of  this  Court  and  has  manipulated   

the  process  of  selection  laid  down  by this  Court  so  as  to   

gain personal  advantage  for admission  of his daughter  and   

the  other  appellant  thereby  causing  serious  prejudice  to   

other  candidates  of higher  merit.  Having held him guilty of   

the  offence  of civil contempt  in terms  of Section  12 of the   

Act, we refrain from awarding him civil imprisonment  for the   

29

Page 30

reasons  aforenoticed  and award him a penalty of Rs.2,000/-   

as fine.

Contemnors  (C) to  (F)  :    Ms.  Amrita  Banerjee  Mitra,  former  Assistant  Prof.  Physiology,  Medical  College   Jagdalpur.  Chhattisgarh;  Dr.  Sanjivani  Wanjari,  former   Associate  Prof.  Obstetrics  and  Gynaecology,  Medical   College  Jagdalpur,  Chhattisgarh;  Dr.  P.D.  Agrawal,  former   Associate  Prof.  Radiology  medical  College,  Jagdalalpur,   Chhattisgarh  and  Mr.  Padmakar  Sasane,  former  Demonstrator  Biophysics  in the  Department  of  Physiology,  Medical College Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

25. The  stand  taken  by these  contemnors  in  their  reply  

affidavit  is  that  Ms.  Amrita  Banerjee  had  taken  over  as   

acting  Dean  on  1st November,  2006  and  she  had  acted  in  

furtherance  to the letters  issued  by the Director.   While Dr.   

Sanjivani  Wanjari,  Dr.  P.D.  Agrawal  and  Mr.  Padmakar   

Sasane  have  stated  that  they  were  members  of  the   

Selection  Committee  which had recommended  admission  of   

the two appellants,  they also  have taken  up the stand  that   

they  had  acted  as  per  the  directions  of  the  Dean.   It  is   

further  pointed  out  that  the  Dean  had  constituted  the   

Committee and required it so  as  to make recommendations   

for admission.   On behalf  of Ms.  Banerjee,  it is stated  that   

30

Page 31

she  had  received  a  letter  from  the  Director  of  Medical  

Education  Office  on  30 th September,  2006  that  the  seats   

should  be  filled  according  to  merit  upon  establishing   

contact  with  the  candidates.   On  30 th September,  2006  

itself, she  had  constituted  the  Committee  consisting  of the   

other  three  contemnors  and,  in  fact,  the  Committee   

conducted  its  entire  proceeding  and  recommended  the   

names  of  the  two candidates,  i.e.  Kumari Priya Gupta  and   

Kumari Akanksha  Adile and they were granted  admission on   

that  very day i.e.  on  30 th September,  2006.  The  same  was  

intimated  to the  Director  of Medical Education  Office vide a  

letter  of the  same  date.   All these  contemnors  have relied   

upon  a judgment  of this  Court  in the  case  of  D.P. Gupta  v.  

Parsuram Tiwari [(2004)  13  SCC 746]  to  contend  that  if a   

person  acts  upon  the  directions  of  his  superior,  he  is  not   

liable to be punished  for contempt.   In the alternative, they  

have  also  tendered  unconditional  apology  before  this   

Court.

31

Page 32

26. Firstly,  we  must  deal  with  the  case  of  D.P.  Gupta  

(supra).   In  that  case,  the  High  Court  had  punished  the   

Vice-Chancellor  for over-reaching  the  judgment  of the  High   

Court  by  exercising  his  power  to  condone  the  break  in  

service  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Head  of  Department.   

The High Court also punished  the Registrar of the University  

who was stated  to have advised  the  Vice-Chancellor  to  act   

accordingly.   The  Supreme  Court,  while  upholding  the   

conviction  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University noticed   

that  the  person  concerned  was  not  the  acting  Registrar   

who had advised the Vice-Chancellor but had merely carried   

out  the  order  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  by  issuing  the   

notification,  which he was bound  to carry out.   Accordingly,  

the  prayer of the  appellant  was allowed by this  Court.   It is   

obvious  that  the contemnor  in that  case  had not  done  any  

act  or  advised  the  Vice-Chancellor  on  any  count   

whatsoever.   The  Vice-Chancellor  had  issued  an  order   

condoning  the  break  in service  and  required  the  Registrar   

to  issue  notification  in  furtherance  thereto.   In  these   

circumstances,  the  Supreme  Court  found  that  he  was  not   

32

Page 33

guilty of violating  the  order  of the  Court  as  he  had  merely  

issued notification as directed.   Certainly, this case  on facts   

has  no  application  to  the  case  in hand.   The  Dean  of  the   

College  was  expected  to  act  in accordance  with law.  She   

not  only abdicated  her  responsibilities  and  obligations  in  

conducting  a  fair  and  transparent  admission  to  the  two  

remaining  seats  but,  in  fact,  colluded  with  Dr.  Adile,   

Director  of the  Health  Services  in ensuring  manipulation  of  

the  process  leading  to  admission  of  his  daughter  and   

deprived more meritorious  students  of those  seats.   In her   

entire affidavit or in the letter, she has not averred that any  

other candidate  was informed or contacted  on telephone  in  

the  entire  State,  which  means  that  all  other  meritorious   

and  eligible  candidates  were  not  even  informed  of  

availability of  the  two  seats.   It  was  her  responsibility to   

ensure  that  the vacancy of such  seats  be duly intimated to   

the  eligible  candidates,  which was  not  done,  primarily with  

the  intention  to  favour  the  two appellants  who have been   

given admission  in a most  arbitrary manner.   It is not  even   

disputed  before  the Court that  candidates,  who were much   

33

Page 34

higher  in  the  order  of  merit  than  the  two  to  whom seats   

were  awarded,  have  not  got  admission  to  the  medical   

course.   It is also surprising that within the working hours  of   

the  office  on  30 th September,  2006,  the  entire  commotion   

of  awarding  seats  to  the  two  candidates  was  completed.   

The scrutinizing of the applications  and documentation,  the   

holding  of  the  interview and  even  deposit  of  fees  by the   

appellants  was  completed  on  that  very day.  All this  could   

not have happened  but for complete  collusion between  the   

Director,  the  Dean  and  the  Selection  Committee.   It is also   

not  clear  as  to  why the  vacancy position  was  informed  by  

the  Dean  to  the  Director  on  30 th September,  2006  though   

the  second  counseling  had  been  held  between  22 nd and  

23 rd August,  2006.   It  was  expected  of  her  to  inform the   

vacancy  position  well in  time.   Intentionally withholding  of  

this  information  does  not  speak  well of  the  functioning  of  

the Committee.

27. The  members  of  the  Selection  Committee  were  to   

discharge  the   very onerous  duty of  ensuring  that  all  the   

34

Page 35

eligible  candidates  had  been  informed  of  the  vacancy  

position  and  they  were  also  expected  to  scrutinise  the   

certificates  of  eligible  candidates  and  recommend   

admission  strictly in  order  of  merit.   They have  not  even   

averred  in  their  affidavit  that  vacancy position  was  in  the   

knowledge to the eligible persons.   It is not only improbable   

but  impossible  to believe that  in the  entire  State  and  even   

from  the  same  town,  no  candidate  would  have  come  to   

take  admission  to  the  medical  courses,  had  they  been   

intimated  of the  vacancy position.   The Committee  has  not   

only failed to discharge  its onerous  duty but has  even kept   

all principles  of  fair  selection  aside  and  ensured  selection   

of the daughter  of the Director.  In contradistinction to D.P.   

Gupta’s case  (supra),  none  of these  persons  were obliged   

to carry out the directions  of the Director to give admission   

to  these  two  candidates.   In  fact,  there  was  no  such   

direction.   These  persons  were  not  subordinate  to  the   

Director  or  even  the  Dean  while performing  the  duties  for   

filling  up  the  two  vacancies  as  members  of  the  Selection   

35

Page 36

Committee.   They cannot  take shelter  of bona  fide exercise   

of power in obeying orders  of the superior.   

28. In addition to this and for the reasons  recorded  in the   

earlier  part  of  the  judgment,  we  have  no  hesitation  in  

holding  that  all these  four  persons  have  also  violated  the   

orders  of the  Court  and  have circumvented  the  process  of   

selection  and  defeated  the  very object  of  the  directions   

issued  by this  Court.   They have  lowered  the  dignity and   

authority of the  Court  and,  thus,  are  liable  to  be  punished   

for  violating  the  orders  of  this  Court.   Consequently,  they  

are  also  punished  and  directed  to  pay a  fine of Rs.2,000/-   

and copy of this order shall be placed on their personal file.

29. Now, we will deal with the  case  of Mr. Keshav Desiraju,   

Special  Secretary  in  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family  

Welfare  and  of  Jagdish  Prasad,  director  General,  Health   

Services,  Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government   

of India.  Mr. Keshav Desiraju has  stated  in his affidavit that   

he has  been  very serious  in maintaining the  time Schedule   

for  giving  permission  to  new  medical  colleges  taking   

36

Page 37

admissions  for  MBBS/BDS  courses  under  Section  10(a)  of  

the  Medical  Council  of  India  Act,  1956  by 15 th July of  every  

year.  The permission  was stated  to be granted  to the said   

college  on 15 th July, 2006 for the academic year 2006-2007.   

It  is  further  stated  that  the  State  of  Chhattisgarh  has   

contributed  only  three  seats  of  MBBS  at  JLN  Medical   

College,  Raipur,  Chhattisgarh  and  no  seat  was contributed   

in the Government Medical College NMDS Jagdalpur towards   

Central Pool  quota.   Thus,  the  question  of allotting  of seat   

from  the  central  pool  quota  did  not  arise.   He  further   

affirms that  they shall strictly adhere  to  the  schedule  term  

provided under the judgment of the Court.

30. Dr. Jagdish  Prasad  in his affidavit has  also  stated  that   

the  Government  Medical  College,  Jagdalpur  was  given  

approval  on  15 th July, 2006  as  per  Rules  for  the  academic   

year  2006-07.  Admission  to  15% quota  was  completed  by  

8th August,  2006  and  the  unfilled  seats  were  returned  to   

the  respective  State  Governments.   According  to  this   

Affidavit,  Kumari Akanksha  and  Kumari Priya Gupta  did  not   

37

Page 38

belong  to  All  India  quota.   The  Jagdalpur  college  was   

granted  permission for starting the academic procedure  for   

academic year 2006-07 by the Government  of Chhattisgarh   

on  14 th August,  2006.   The  fake  admission  of  the  two  

candidates  came to be  known to the  Department  when an   

application  under  the  Right  to  Information  Act  was  filed by  

one  Dr. Anil Khakharia  in September,  2009  upon  which the   

action was taken.   The letter dated  8 th August,  2006 issued   

by the  Director  General’s  office  was  fake.   The  admission   

was cancelled  vide letter  dated  19 th September,  2010.   It is  

further  averred  that  the  Directorate  strictly adheres  to the   

schedule  provided.   It is also  stated  that  no  deviation  has   

been  made  from the  prescribed  procedure,  time schedule   

approved by the Supreme Court.

31. From these  two affidavits,  it is  in fact  clear  that  both   

these  contemnors  are  not  directly responsible  for violating   

any  order  or  direction  of  the  Court.   However,  they  are   

expected  to  exercise  proper  control  and  supervision  over  

grant  of  recommendation,  permission  to  give admission  in  

38

Page 39

the  colleges  and  the  admission  process.   The  Director   

General of Health Services,  Union of India is responsible  for  

maintaining  transparency  in  the  process  of  admission  to   

the medical colleges.   Two things  are clear  that  they ought   

to  have  checked  that  the  State  could  not  have  permitted   

the  college  to  grant  admission  to  the  students  on  or after   

August  14,  2006  as  15 th of July, 2006  was the  last  date  for  

grant  of  recognition  and  permission  to  run  the  medical   

college.   Secondly,  when  the  complaint  was  received,  the   

Ministry as  well as  the Directorate  was expected  to act with  

greater  expeditiousness  and  ought  not  to  have  permitted   

the  wrongly granted  admissions  to  continue.   In fact,  the   

Government or the Directorate  both took no action against   

the  institute,  even  till  date.   There  is  apparent  lack  of   

proper  supervision  and  enforcement  of  the  directions   

issued by this Court on the part of these  contemnors.

32. Having considered  the  entire  spectrum of the  matter,   

we  are  of  the  considered  view that  the  ends  of  justice   

would  be  met  by  issuing  a  warning  to  both  these   

39

Page 40

contemnors  and  not  to  punish  them  with  fine  or   

imprisonment.   They should be more careful in discharge  of  

their functions  and duties  in accordance  with the judgment   

of  this  Court  and  we  further  direct  them  to  ensure   

circulation of this judgment as well as the judgment of Priya   

Gupta’s case  to  all  the  Directors,  Health  Services  of  the   

respective  States,  Deans  of  the  Universities  holding  the   

selection/examination  or  admission  process  for  MBBS/BDS  

courses  as well as to the Dean of all the colleges.    

33. In result  of  the  above  discussion,  contemnor  Dr.  S.L.  

Adile,  Amrita  Banerjee,  Dr.  Sanjivani  Wanjari,  Dr.  P.D.   

Agrawal  and  Mr.  Padmakar  Sasane  are  hereby  punished   

and  awarded  the  sentence  of fine of Rs.2,000/- each.   The   

fine should  be  deposited  within four  weeks  from today.  In  

the  event  of  default,  they  shall  be  liable  to  undergo  civil  

imprisonment  for  a  period  of  two  weeks.   The  notice  of  

contempt  against  them is discharged,  however,  subject  to   

the observations  aforemade.

……………………………..J.

40

Page 41

                                               [A.K. Patnaik]

……………………………..J.                                                 [Swatanter  Kumar]

New Delhi December 13, 2012  

41