The Karnataka High Court on Monday took suo motu cognisance of the failure of State authorities to act on orders passed under the Contempt of Courts Act..A Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said,"The casual, lethargic and insensitive approach on the part of the authorities towards the compliance of the orders and directions of the courts cannot be tolerated. It has to be dealt with sternly. As the justice delayed is justice denied, too belated compliance is not to be countenanced, but has to be viewed as contempt of court itself committed in disguise or in indirect manner.".The order stated that the democratic commitment of any government can be judged by the respect it accords to the order of the Court. It added,"At the same time, the real majesty of the Courts lies in its vibrant existence and effective functioning. Such vibrancy and effectiveness, in turn, would be achieved by ensuring due implementation and swift obedience of the judgments and orders of the Court."It explained that non-compliance of court orders and directions would shake the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.Underlining that the government as well as semi-government authorities are stakeholders in this facet of administration of justice, the Court took exception to their inclination to sit tight over implementation of the Court's directions."The judgments and orders passed by the courts of law are shelved for one or other reason, either out of lethargy or because of red-tapism. Such state of things is fatal to the interests of administration of justice, much more, it erodes the faith and confidence of a common man in the judicial machinery and judicial system," the Court said..The Court highlighted that during the last two weeks, it observed that while dealing with petitions filed under the Contempt of the Courts Act, its directions were not complied with by the relevant authorities.It specifically outlined eleven instances of such non-compliance. Based on these examples, it found that without any good reason, the authorities had virtually disregarded the directions..Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the State of Karnataka. It directed its Registrar General to obtain the list of all the departments of the State government and arraign them as respondents.It then stated that semi-government authorities, statutory bodies or corporations - which are also limbs of the State - bear equal responsibility towards the judgments and orders of the court.Therefore, it also issued notices to Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB).The other corporations, semi-governmental bodies and statutory bodies shall be liable to be arraigned as parties at a subsequent stage, the Court added..The Court called upon all the respondents to answer the following questions:(i) What method of processing is adopted after and once orders or judgments of the High Court, or any other Court, are received by the Department or in the office of competent authority?(ii) Whether any special branch or designated authority is made functional, to treat, deal with and act upon, the orders and directions by the courts to take them to their logical end of compliance?(iii) Whether any machinery or mechanism is created internally in the Department or governmental bodies for ensuring compliance of the directions of the courts as may be required as per the orders and judgments of the courts?(iv) What steps are generally taken by the authorities concerned to attend to, to supervise, to monitor and to effectuate the orders and directions of the courts?(v) Whether any disciplinary measures are evolved or taken against the erring Officers who are found to be sitting tight over the orders and directions of the courts or those who are guilty of non-compliance within the time stipulated in the order or within reasonable time?.The Court clarified that the proceedings were not a fault finding process, but were meant to streamline the procedure for compliance of orders and directions of the courts."The beneficiaries are the class of litigants, who will be benefited if the authorities activate themselves to discharge their constitutional duty to obey and implement the orders of the courts without booking any delay on their part, without which, it will not be possible for the litigants to enjoy the results of the litigation which may have ended in their favour. All the more, the orders of the court are the source of rights and obligations of the litigants," it added.The matter will be heard further on June 5, before which the respondents are to make their stand clear by filing their replies..[Read Order]
The Karnataka High Court on Monday took suo motu cognisance of the failure of State authorities to act on orders passed under the Contempt of Courts Act..A Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said,"The casual, lethargic and insensitive approach on the part of the authorities towards the compliance of the orders and directions of the courts cannot be tolerated. It has to be dealt with sternly. As the justice delayed is justice denied, too belated compliance is not to be countenanced, but has to be viewed as contempt of court itself committed in disguise or in indirect manner.".The order stated that the democratic commitment of any government can be judged by the respect it accords to the order of the Court. It added,"At the same time, the real majesty of the Courts lies in its vibrant existence and effective functioning. Such vibrancy and effectiveness, in turn, would be achieved by ensuring due implementation and swift obedience of the judgments and orders of the Court."It explained that non-compliance of court orders and directions would shake the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.Underlining that the government as well as semi-government authorities are stakeholders in this facet of administration of justice, the Court took exception to their inclination to sit tight over implementation of the Court's directions."The judgments and orders passed by the courts of law are shelved for one or other reason, either out of lethargy or because of red-tapism. Such state of things is fatal to the interests of administration of justice, much more, it erodes the faith and confidence of a common man in the judicial machinery and judicial system," the Court said..The Court highlighted that during the last two weeks, it observed that while dealing with petitions filed under the Contempt of the Courts Act, its directions were not complied with by the relevant authorities.It specifically outlined eleven instances of such non-compliance. Based on these examples, it found that without any good reason, the authorities had virtually disregarded the directions..Accordingly, the Court issued notice to the State of Karnataka. It directed its Registrar General to obtain the list of all the departments of the State government and arraign them as respondents.It then stated that semi-government authorities, statutory bodies or corporations - which are also limbs of the State - bear equal responsibility towards the judgments and orders of the court.Therefore, it also issued notices to Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB).The other corporations, semi-governmental bodies and statutory bodies shall be liable to be arraigned as parties at a subsequent stage, the Court added..The Court called upon all the respondents to answer the following questions:(i) What method of processing is adopted after and once orders or judgments of the High Court, or any other Court, are received by the Department or in the office of competent authority?(ii) Whether any special branch or designated authority is made functional, to treat, deal with and act upon, the orders and directions by the courts to take them to their logical end of compliance?(iii) Whether any machinery or mechanism is created internally in the Department or governmental bodies for ensuring compliance of the directions of the courts as may be required as per the orders and judgments of the courts?(iv) What steps are generally taken by the authorities concerned to attend to, to supervise, to monitor and to effectuate the orders and directions of the courts?(v) Whether any disciplinary measures are evolved or taken against the erring Officers who are found to be sitting tight over the orders and directions of the courts or those who are guilty of non-compliance within the time stipulated in the order or within reasonable time?.The Court clarified that the proceedings were not a fault finding process, but were meant to streamline the procedure for compliance of orders and directions of the courts."The beneficiaries are the class of litigants, who will be benefited if the authorities activate themselves to discharge their constitutional duty to obey and implement the orders of the courts without booking any delay on their part, without which, it will not be possible for the litigants to enjoy the results of the litigation which may have ended in their favour. All the more, the orders of the court are the source of rights and obligations of the litigants," it added.The matter will be heard further on June 5, before which the respondents are to make their stand clear by filing their replies..[Read Order]
