'Lack Of Speed' Not Sufficient To Initiate Contempt Action On Ground Of Deliberate & Wilful Disobedience Of Judicial Order: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that the "lack of speed" in implementing a judicial order would not be sufficient for a court to take contempt action against the authorities on the ground of "deliberate and wilful disobedience" under Contempt of Courts Act.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Delhi Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan for initiation of contempt proceedings for non compliance of an interim order passed in 2017 in respect of expediting the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA).

Observing that proper disbursal of adequate nourishment is an important welfare function of the State, the Court said that it "hopes and trusts" that the Delhi government will implement the Act in its true letter and spirit.

On September 1, 2017, the Delhi government was directed by a division bench to file its response on steps taken for examining the Model Rules suggested by the Centre under the Act and also for forming a grievance redressal mechanism. The court had also sought response on steps taken for providing a periodical social audit of fair price shops by a local authority or any other authority or body authorized by the State Government.

Noting that the court had earlier expressed its dissatisfaction regarding the speed in compliance of the interim order, the bench, however, ruled that the "lack of speed alone is not sufficient" for it to take action against the authorities "on the ground of deliberate and wilful disobedience" of its orders.

"Though this Court does not appreciate the delay on the part of the Respondents in carrying out of the directions of this Court, however, it is not sufficient to hold up the Respondents for committing Contempt of Court within the ambit of Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," the court said in its verdict passed on Friday.

Observing further that the NFSA is a welfare legislation enacted to provide for affordable and adequate food for eligible beneficiaries, the court said:

"Proper disbursal of adequate nourishment is a pertinent welfare function of the state and it should be implemented with utmost thoroughness for the benefit of the intended. However, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that there was any wilful disobedience of the Order of this Court dated 01.09.2017, thereby making out a case for contempt of Court."

While the contempt plea was filed in February 2019, the main plea in which the interim order was passed was disposed of by high court on 05.04.2022.

Seeking action for wilful disobedience of the interim order, the petitioner had alleged that the food authorities continue to insist on either production of Aadhar or ask the eligible beneficiaries to apply for the same in order to provide subsidised food grains to them. The contempt case also alleged that people who were eligible for accessing food grain under the Act were being excluded due to mandatory requirement of Aadhar.

Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India, the petitioner argued that the case exclusively dealt with Aadhaar and is not related to the non implementation of NFSA. 

It was submitted that neither the final order in disposing of the main plea nor the Apex Court verdict had any bearing on the order in question directing the Delhi Government to implement the provisions of NFSA.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the Delhi Government that the issue of mandatory submission of Aadhar Card numbers for distribution of food grains to eligible persons had been taken care of by not insisting for the same. Regarding Grievance Redressal Mechanism Rules and State Food Commission, the government said the matter is under consideration.

The court said it has gone through the affidavit filed by Delhi government and is of the opinion that the State is taking steps to comply with the order dated September 1, 2017.

"On several occasions, this Court has expressed its dissatisfaction in the manner in which the Respondent was proceeding in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (C) 2161/ 2017, once again, this Court hopes and trusts that GNCTD shall implement the NFSA, 2013 in its true letter and spirit," the court observed.

Rejecting the plea, the court said that the question of initiating contempt proceedings in a disposed of matter did not arise as the interim order was in respect of the NFSA and the main matter was heard finally.

The court however clarified that the petitioner has a right to challenge the interim order before the Supreme Court, adding that it found no reason for exercising contempt jurisdiction.

Title: DELHI ROZI ROTI ADHIKAR ABHIYAN v. RAJESH AHUJA

2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

Click Here To Read Order