Maninderjeet Singh Bitta v.

UOI, (2011) 11 SCALE 634

The issue involved in the case of Maninderjeet Singh Bitta v. Union Of India 1 is with respect to the
application of extraordinary jurisdiction of the courts which is contempt. This case study deals with
the offence of contempt and its procedure in rule of law. It is a landmark judgment thereby making
many officials aware that if no steps are taken in compliance with directions of Court, it shall
constitute contempt of court.

Facts

The iGovernment iof iIndia, iissued ia inotification idated iMarch i28, i2001 iunder ithe iMotor iVehicle iAct,
i 1988 ithereby iestablishing ia ischeme ithat iaimed iat iregulating ithe iissuance iand ifixation iof ihigh isecurity
i number iplates i(HSNP) ion ivehicles iacross ithe icountry. iThis iinitiative isought ito icreate istandardised
i number iplates ithroughout iIndia iwith ithe iprimary iobjective ito iensure ipublic isafety iand isecurity iby
i implementing iguidelines ifor ithe iintroduction iof ithese inumber iplates. iHowever, ichallenges iarose
i regarding ithe iCentral iGovernment’s ipower ito iissue isuch inotification ias iwell ias iconcerning ithe itender
i process iterms iand iconditions. iThis iled ito iwrit ipetitions ibeing ifiled iin idifferent iHigh iCourts iraising ithe
i same ichallenge. iThus, ithese iwrit ipetitions icame ito ibe itransferred ito ithe iSupreme iCourt iwhich iwas
i subsequently idismissed, iupholding ithe ivalidity iof ithe irules iand iprovisions.

Nevertheless, ifurther iissues isurfaced ias iseveral istates idisplayed inon-compliance iwith ithe ischeme.
i Some istates iexhibited ilethargy iin iinitiating ithe itender iprocess, iwhile iothers ifailed ito itake iany iaction
i whatsoever. iDespite ithe iCourt's idirectives iand igranting iof isix imonths ifor iimplementation, imany istates
i remained inon-compliant, iprompting ithe iCourt ito iissue inotices iin iApril i2011. iThe iCourt icategorised
i the istates ibased ion itheir iadherence ito ithe ischeme, ithat iis, ithose iactively iimplementing iit, ithose inot
i following ithe icorrect iprocedure ifor iapproval, ithose ipromising ito icomply, iand ithose ineglecting ithe
i directives ientirely. iNotably, ithe iState iof iHaryana ifell iinto ithe ilast icategory, idemonstrating iminimal
i effort itowards iimplementing ithe iHSNP ischeme. iAs ia iconsequence iof ipersistent inon-compliance, ithe
i Court iissued ishow icause inotice ifor iproceedings iunder ithe iContempt iof iCourts iAct, i1971 iagainst
i Haryana.

Issues

The primary issues involved in this case was whether the concerned government officers, herein, the
state transport authority of Haryana, are liable for the offence of contempt due to wilful disobedience
of court orders.

1
Maninderjeet Singh Bitta v. UOI, (2011) 11 SCALE 634.
Analysis

This icase iinvolves ithe iCourt iconsidering iinvoking ithe iContempt iof iCourts iAct, i1971, idue ito ithe iState
i of iHaryana's ifailure ito icomply iwith icourt iorders irelated ito iimplementing ithe iHSNP ischeme.
i According ito iSection i41(3) iof ithe iMotor iVehicles iAct, i1988 iit iis iclear ithat, iif iany iCentral iGovernment
i issues iany inotification ior iany ischeme iwhich iis iin ipublic igood iby iOfficial iGazette ithan iit ishould ibe
i followed iand iimplemented iby ithe iconcerned iauthorities istrictly. iHere, ithe iCentral iGovernment idid
i issue isuch ia inotification ifor iimplementation iof iHSNP ischeme. iRegardless iof ithe ischeme imany istates
i did inot itake iany isteps ifor ithe ieffective iimplementation iof ischeme. i

As ithis iwas imatter iof ipublic iimportance, ithe iofficers ishould ihave ibeen imore icautious iand ieffective
i while iimplementing ithe isame iand ishouldn’t itreat iit ilike iany iregular ioffice itask. iThe ifact ithat ithe
i process iwas ion ia ihalt ifor imore ithan i7 iyears iis iin iand iof iitself ian iindication iof ithe iintentional
i negligence iof ithe iofficers. iThey ifailed ito irespond ito ithis icardinal inotification ifor ia ivery ilong iperiod iof
i time. iHence, isuch ia idefault iis ianyway iintentional iin inature. iInaction ifor iyears iby ithe iofficers iis iself-
explanatory ithat ithe iofficers iwere iintentionally iat idefault. i

Even ithough ithe iimplementation iof ithe ischeme icouldn’t ibe istarted iimmediately iin i2001 ibecause iof ithe
i court icases iagainst iit, ibut ionce ithe imatter iwas isettled iin i2004, ithe icourt iexpected ithe istates ito ibegin
i positive iprogress ias ithis iwas ia imatter iof ipublic iinterest. iBut iwhen ithere iwas ino iresponse ithrough
i conduct iby ithe idefaulting istates ifor i7 iyears, iit ican ibe iconcluded ithat ithe istates iare inot iperforming itheir
i duties idiligently. iMoreover, ithe icourt ialso istated ithat ia itime iextension icould ibe igiven iif ithe ireason
i provided ifor ithe idelay iwas ijustified. iHence, ithe icourt ifinds ino ijustified ireason ion ipart iof ithe
i respondents ifor ithe isaid idelay. iLeaving ithem iwithout icharging isome isort iof ifine iwould ibe iwrong iin
i many iregards. iCharging ithem iwould iset ia iprecedent iwherein iauthorities iwould iunderstand ithat
i matters iof ipublic isafety ishould ibe iprioritized iand icourt’s iorders ishould ibe idiligently ifollowed iin iorder
i to irespect ithe irule iof ilaw. i

In iaddition ito ithe iestablishment iof imistake idone iby ithe istates, ithe iCourt iexamined icertain iprinciples iof
i law iin iorder ito iexercise iextraordinary ijurisdiction iof ithe icourts. iIt ielaborated iupon itwo imain iheads iof
i jurisdiction, ifirstly, icriminal icontempt iwhich ican ibe iclassified ifrom ithe icases iwhere iby iwords, ispoken
i or iwritten, isigns ior iany imatter ior idoing iany iact iwhich iscandalises, iprejudices ior iinterferes, iobstructs
i or ieven itends ito iobstruct ithe idue icourse iof iany ijudicial iproceedings, iany icourt iand ithe iadministration
i of ijustice iin iany iother imanner. iSecondly, icivil icontempt, iwould ibe iwilful ibreach iof ian iundertaking
i given ito ithe icourt ior iwilful idisobedience iof iany ijudgment ior iorder iof ithe icourt. iThe icourt ilaid imore
i emphasis ion ithe icivil ihead iof icontempt ibecause imany istate iauthorities idefaulted iand idid inot ifollow
i the idirections igiven iby ithe icourt. i
The icourt irelied iupon ithe icase iof iRe: iVinay iChandra iMishra2, iwhere ithe iSupreme iCourt iheld ithat
i judiciary ihas ia ispecial iand iadditional iduty ito iperform, ito ioversee ithat iall iindividuals iand iinstitutions
i including ithe iexecutive iand ithe ilegislature iact iwithin ithe iframework iof inot ionly ilaw ibut ialso ithe
i fundamental ilaw iof ithe iland.

In ithis icase, ithe iState iof iHaryana ihas icontinuously idefied ithe iCourt's iinstructions iand ifailed ito
i implement imandated iplans, idisregarding ipublic iinterest iand iundermining ithe iCourt's iintegrity. iThe
i behaviour iof iHaryana iofficials ihas ibeen iindifferent iand ideliberately idismissive idespite imultiple icourt
i orders. iTheir iinaction inot ionly idisrupted ithe istatutory iplan ibut ialso icompromised ithe iCourt's idignity
i and iviolated ilegal istandards. iOver i7 iyears, ino itangible iprogress ior iexplanation ifor ithis inegligence ihas
i been iprovided. iThe iState iof iHaryana iand ispecific iofficials, inotably ithe iSecretary iof iTransport iand ithe
i Commissioner iof iState iTransport iAuthority, ihave idisregarded iCourt iorders, ibearing iresponsibility ifor
i their idefiance. iSuch iconduct, iopposed ito ithe iCourt's iauthority, iundermines isocietal iorder iand imust ibe
i addressed ito iuphold ithe iCourts' idignity iand ifunction.

Conclusion

The case study illustrates the Supreme Court's consistent allowance of multiple opportunities for the
respondents, particularly the State of Haryana, to fulfil their obligations. However, there was no
demonstrable response or action from the authorities. Initially, there was a lack of progress in
executing the task for 7 years ifollowing ithe icourt's iclarifications. iSubsequently, ieven iafter ithe icourt's
i directives ito ithe idefaulting istates, ithe iauthorities idisplayed ireluctance iin icarrying iout itheir
i responsibilities. iAs ia iresult, ipenalties iwere iimposed ion ithe iofficials iof ithe iState iRoad iTransport
i Authority iin iHaryana.

Considering ithat icourts iutilise icontempt ijurisdiction ito ienforce icompliance iwith itheir ifuture iorders, iit
i becomes iimperative ito iimpose ipenalties. iTherefore, iwe iexplicitly iinstruct iboth ithe iState iGovernment
i and ithe iaccused ito ipromptly iadhere ito ithe iorders iand iexecute ithe iplan. iIt's icrucial ifor iofficials ito
i understand ithe iseriousness iof inon-compliance iand ithe ipotential iconsequences iof icontempt.
i Disregarding icourt iorders idemonstrates idisrespect ifor ithe icourt's iauthority, iconstituting icontempt iand
i rendering ithem iaccountable iunder iapplicable ilaws.

2
Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584.