Under Article 32 in which case ‘wilful non-compliance’ with court order was declared as contempt of the court?
- (a)Nilabati vs. State of Orissa
- (b)M. L. Sachdev vs. Union of India
- (c)Gracy vs. State of Kerala
- (d)Gopi Aqua vs. Union of India
Correct — B, M. L. Sachdev vs. Union of India.
In M. L. Sachdev vs. Union of India, decided on 5 November 1990, the Supreme Court had already issued a mandamus: on 20 April 1990 it directed that the MRTP Commission be appropriately constituted within three weeks, and the time was later extended to 7 July 1990.
The Union neither constituted the Commission by that extended date nor came back to the Court to ask for further time. The Court's reasoning fastens on that second failure — a party to whom a mandamus is addressed cannot simply keep away from the Court without complying with the direction.
On that footing the Court held the respondent-Union in the Ministry of Industries, represented by the Secretary, guilty of contempt of the Court. An unqualified apology was tendered and the Commission had by then been reconstituted, so no punishment was imposed.
Carry away the principle rather than the name: a direction of the Court is a command, and staying silent instead of either obeying it or returning for more time is what supplies the 'wilful' element that contempt requires.
- (a)Nilabati vs. State of Orissa — Nilabati Behera's case (1993) sits in the same Article 32 territory, which is what makes it inviting here, but it answers a question about remedy rather than about disobedience.
It is the authority for awarding compensation in public law under Article 32 where a custodial death violates Article 21, and for the position that sovereign immunity is no defence to such a public-law claim.
The two ideas answer different complaints. Compensation repairs a wrong the State has already done to a citizen; contempt answers a party's defiance of a direction the Court itself has already passed.
- (c)Gracy vs. State of Kerala — Smt. Gracy's case, decided on 15 February 1991, is a preventive-detention ruling arising under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
It is the authority for the rule that a detenu's representation must be considered by the government independently of the Advisory Board's opinion, whichever of the two the representation happens to be addressed to; the Court treated the mode of address as a matter of form.
The detention there was quashed for breach of Article 22(5). That is a defect in how an executive authority handled a representation, whereas the stem asks about the fate of an order the Court had already made.
- (d)Gopi Aqua vs. Union of India — Gopi Aqua Farms' petitions (1997) belong to the coastal aquaculture litigation, and the ruling in them is about maintainability.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions in limine, reading them as an attempt to get rid of the judgment already delivered in S. Jagannath v. Union of India, and remarking that if such re-litigation were permitted there would be no end to litigation.
Notice how near that comes to the stem without meeting it. Refusing to let a decided matter be reopened through fresh petitions protects the Court's judgment, but the stem asks which case treated wilful non-compliance with an order as contempt.
Article 32 gives a person the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of the fundamental rights in Part III, and Article 32(2) lets the Court issue directions, orders or writs — habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari — for that purpose.
A direction issued in that jurisdiction is backed by a separate power. Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record with the power to punish for contempt of itself, and Article 215 says the same of every High Court.
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 supplies the vocabulary. Section 2(b) defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
The word carrying the weight is 'wilful'. It separates a party that cannot comply, or that returns to the Court and explains why, from a party that simply declines to act and stays away.
Writ jurisdiction would be a paper remedy if the order at the end of it could be ignored. The contempt power under Article 129 is the necessary complement to Article 32 — it is what turns a judicial declaration into an enforceable command.
The stem's case makes that point against the strongest possible respondent. The party held guilty was the Union in the Ministry of Industries, represented by its Secretary, so the position is that the State stands under the Court's directions like any other litigant.
It also marks out the escape route the law does allow. A respondent unable to comply within the time fixed is expected to come back to the Court for an extension; the failure to do that is what converted delay into contempt here.
- Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs — including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari — to enforce fundamental rights.
- Article 129 makes the Supreme Court a court of record with power to punish for contempt of itself; Article 215 makes the same provision for High Courts.
- Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as wilful disobedience to a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.
- The same provision treats wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court as civil contempt.
- In M. L. Sachdev's case the Court directed on 20 April 1990 that the MRTP Commission be appropriately constituted within three weeks, later extending the time to 7 July 1990.
- The judgment was delivered on 5 November 1990 and is reported at 1991 AIR 311.
- The Court held the respondent-Union in the Ministry of Industries, represented by the Secretary, guilty of contempt; an unqualified apology was tendered and no punishment was imposed.
- Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa (1993) is the authority for compensation in public law under Article 32 for a custodial death violating Article 21.
- Smt. Gracy vs. State of Kerala, decided on 15 February 1991, held that a detenu's representation must be considered independently of the Advisory Board's opinion under Article 22(5).
- Gopi Aqua Farms vs. Union of India (1997) was dismissed in limine as an attempt to get rid of the judgment in S. Jagannath v. Union of India.
Among the case rows, the contempt holding is the Sachdev row; the others turn on compensation, preventive detention and re-litigation.
- Each of the four named cases was decided by the Supreme Court, so the words 'Under Article 32' fix the jurisdiction without narrowing the choice; the holding is the only discriminator.
- Familiarity is the hazard: recognising Nilabati Behera as an Article 32 landmark is not the same as checking whether its holding is about compensation or about disobedience.
- 'Wilful' is the operative word. In Sachdev it was the Union's failure to return to the Court for further time, rather than delay by itself, that carried the finding.
- Disobeying an order is civil contempt under Section 2(b); scandalising the court or obstructing the administration of justice is criminal contempt under Section 2(c). Swapping the labels loses a statement-based question.
- An apology accepted and punishment withheld does not mean contempt was not made out — in Sachdev the finding of contempt stood even though no punishment followed.
- The Constitution confers the contempt power on the Supreme Court and the High Courts, while the definitions of civil and criminal contempt come from the 1971 Act, not from the Constitution.
The idea reaches you in a few recognisable shapes. One is the case-to-holding match you have here: a proposition of constitutional law is stated and you are asked which ruling established it.
Another is a statement set on the contempt power itself — whether Articles 129 and 215 confer it, whether the Constitution or the 1971 Act defines civil and criminal contempt, and whether Parliament can legislate on the subject.
A third comes through Article 32 directly: which writ lies in a given situation, what Article 32(4) says about suspension of the right, and what follows when a direction issued under Article 32 goes unobeyed.
UPSC_1997_GS1_Q881997Same proposition, opposite direction of testing. That Assertion-Reason item states as its Assertion that wilful disobedience or non-compliance with court orders amounts to contempt of court and asks you to judge it against a reason about judicial activism; the UKPSC item takes the proposition as settled and asks which case declared it. One tests whether you accept the rule, the other whether you can attach a case name to it.
UPSC_2022_GS1_Q112022Same subject, statutory rather than case-law angle. That item works through the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the constitutional power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves, and whether the Constitution itself defines civil and criminal contempt. The UKPSC item needs none of that framework — it needs the case in which non-compliance with a direction was held to be contempt.
CAPF_GAI_2021_Q482021Shares the source-of-the-power question. That item asks which statement about the Supreme Court is not correct, one option pairing Article 129 with Article 144 as the source of the contempt power — the statement that fails — set beside advisory jurisdiction and the binding force of its law. The UKPSC item assumes the power exists and moves to the case that applied it to a disobeyed direction.
MPPSC_2019_PRE_PaperI_Q1002019Same task shape, different area of law. There a proposition is given — that Article 21 was read to include the right to education — and you pick the case that produced it from four case names. The UKPSC item asks the identical kind of match on contempt for non-compliance instead. The skill rehearsed is holding-to-case recall, not any shared point of doctrine.
- practice — not a real PYQ
In M. L. Sachdev vs. Union of India (1990), the Supreme Court's finding of contempt against the Union arose out of its failure regarding which one of the following?
- (a)Constituting the MRTP Commission within the time fixed by the Court
- (b)Compensating the family of a person who had died in police custody
- (c)Considering a detenu's representation independently of the Advisory Board's opinion
- (d)Regulating shrimp farms situated in the coastal regulation zone
Answera — the Court directed on 20 April 1990 that the MRTP Commission be appropriately constituted within three weeks and later extended the time to 7 July 1990; the Union neither complied nor sought further time, and was held guilty of contempt.(b) describes the subject of Nilabati Behera's case, which concerns compensation under Article 32 rather than contempt. (c) is the Article 22(5) point decided in Smt. Gracy's case. (d) belongs to the coastal aquaculture litigation in which Gopi Aqua Farms' petitions were dismissed in limine.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Consider the following statements: 1. The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself is conferred by Article 129 of the Constitution. 2. The expressions 'civil contempt' and 'criminal contempt' are defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Answerc — both statements hold. Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a court of record with all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself, which makes statement 1 correct and rules out (b) and (d).The two species of contempt are defined by statute: civil contempt in Section 2(b) and criminal contempt in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. That makes statement 2 correct as well and rules out (a).
- practice — not a real PYQ
Smt. Gracy vs. State of Kerala (1991) is associated with which one of the following propositions?
- (a)Compensation may be awarded under Article 32 where a custodial death violates Article 21
- (b)A detenu's representation must be considered by the government independently of the Advisory Board's opinion
- (c)Wilful non-compliance with a direction of the Court amounts to contempt of the Court
- (d)Fresh writ petitions may not be used to unsettle a judgment already delivered
Answerb — the Court held that a representation against preventive detention must be considered by the government on its own, whatever the Advisory Board says and whichever of the two it is addressed to, the mode of address being a matter of form; the detention was quashed for breach of Article 22(5).(a) is the holding in Nilabati Behera's case. (c) is the finding in M. L. Sachdev's case. (d) reflects the reasoning on which Gopi Aqua Farms' petitions were dismissed in limine as an attempt to get rid of the judgment in S. Jagannath v. Union of India.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The proposition that sovereign immunity is no defence to a claim for compensation in public law for violation of Article 21 is associated with which one of the following cases?
- (a)Nilabati vs. State of Orissa
- (b)M. L. Sachdev vs. Union of India
- (c)Gracy vs. State of Kerala
- (d)Gopi Aqua vs. Union of India
Answera — Nilabati Behera's case (1993) established that compensation for a custodial death may be awarded in a public-law proceeding under Article 32 for breach of Article 21, and that sovereign immunity does not answer such a claim.(b) was decided on contempt for non-compliance with a mandamus about constituting the MRTP Commission. (c) turned on Article 22(5) and a detenu's representation under the Act of 1988. (d) was dismissed in limine as an attempt to reopen the aquaculture judgment in S. Jagannath.