February 24, 2026 : The Supreme Court has taken a firm stand against senior officials of the Chhattisgarh government for failing to comply with its earlier judgment, observing that a “clear-cut case of contempt” is made out and warning that charges may be framed if compliance is not ensured within the final opportunity granted.
The matter arises out of Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 5 and 6 of 2026 in Civil Appeals Nos. 7023 and 7024 of 2025. A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing allegations that its order dated May 20, 2025 had not been implemented within the three-month period granted by the Court.
According to the record, the order was required to be complied with on or before August 20, 2025. However, correspondence placed before the Court showed that the Managing Director of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation wrote to the State Government seeking “guidance” only after a substantial portion of the compliance period had already elapsed. Subsequent reminders and internal communications also took place well after the deadline had expired.
The Bench noted that instead of approaching the Court in time with a proper application seeking clarification or modification, the concerned authorities filed a review petition in October 2025. Even that review petition remained defective and had not been cured at the time of hearing. The Court made it clear that merely filing a review petition does not suspend the obligation to comply with an operative order. In its words, compliance cannot be made conditional on the outcome of a review.
The affidavit filed by one of the alleged contemnors cited administrative hurdles and implementation difficulties. The Court rejected this justification, observing that if compliance was genuinely beyond the competence of certain officers or required approval from higher authorities, the proper course was to approach the Court within time. No such timely step was taken.
Significantly, the Bench also addressed the liability of third parties or non-parties in contempt proceedings. Referring to settled precedent, it reiterated that once a person or authority becomes aware of a court order, wilful disobedience or deliberate inaction may attract contempt jurisdiction, even if that person was not originally a party to the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Government and the Additional Chief Secretary had knowledge of the order from the official correspondence on record.
The Court further clarified the limited scope of contempt proceedings. When exercising contempt jurisdiction, the only question is whether the original order has been complied with. The correctness or feasibility of that order cannot be examined in contempt proceedings. If a party believes an order is erroneous or impracticable, the remedy lies in appeal or appropriate proceedings, not in ignoring the order.
Expressing concern over a growing trend, the Bench criticised the practice of filing belated appeals or defective review petitions after the time for compliance has expired, often to secure adjournments in contempt matters. Such conduct, the Court observed, risks undermining judicial authority and may, in certain circumstances, border on criminal contempt.
At the same time, the Court granted what it termed an “extraordinary indulgence.” On a joint request from the alleged contemnors and their counsel, the matter has been adjourned for 15 days as a last opportunity to ensure full and unconditional compliance. If affidavits showing complete compliance are filed before the next date, personal appearance may not be required. Failing that, the Court has indicated it will proceed to frame charges.
The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be circulated to senior administrative authorities across the Union and the States, underscoring that officers arrayed in their individual capacity in contempt proceedings must take such matters seriously. The next hearing is scheduled for March 24, 2026.
Case Reference : Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2025, Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors.; and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2025, Md. Hanif v. Amarnath Prasad & Ors (2026 INSC 209).
