New Delhi: The Supreme Court has criticised the Jammu and Kashmir administration for showing procedural disregard in a contempt case involving non-compliance with a High Court order on contractor payments.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was hearing a special leave petition from the Union Territory administration challenging two High Court orders—one from a Single Judge and another from a Division Bench.
The issue began when the High Court directed the administration to process admitted payments to plant suppliers within two months. The payments were not made, prompting the contractors to file contempt proceedings.
Instead of responding before the Single Judge, the UT administration filed an intra-court appeal, which the Division Bench dismissed. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Surya Kant remarked that bureaucrats sometimes act with arrogance and avoid appearing before High Courts. The court said the administration should have explained its position—whether the payments were made or not—directly to the Single Judge.
“It is the duty of the petitioners to clarify before the Single Judge whether the dues were paid or not,” the bench stated, adding that it is up to the High Court to evaluate the explanation and decide accordingly.
Responding to concerns from the Division Bench about a possible “roving inquiry” by the Single Judge, the Supreme Court said any such inquiry must remain within legal limits and focus on individual claims.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Brijendra Chahar, representing the UT, pointed to a show-cause notice being issued as if contempt was already presumed. This led to a strong reaction from the Bench.
Justice Dipankar Datta said the officer concerned could appear virtually and explain the situation if the lawyer couldn’t. He added that the administration should not have filed an appeal before the Division Bench at that stage, especially since no contempt had yet been held.
When the ASG emphasised the show-cause notice, Justice Surya Kant questioned the need for the appeal: “So what? Why can’t they go and explain? Will we start examining every show-cause notice here?”
Justice Datta further said: “A show-cause is standard procedure. Are you saying bureaucrats can’t be issued one?”
On whether the High Court wrongly entertained the contempt plea, the Bench made it clear: “Why should we examine that? The High Court will. We’re not here to guide the High Court or defend bureaucrats.”
The court concluded that if the Single Judge eventually imposes any punishment, the officer concerned would still have the right to appeal before the Division Bench.
The Supreme Court’s remarks underline the need for government officials to respect legal processes and not use appeals to delay or avoid accountability.
