Officials, even third parties, face contempt for non-compliance of court orders

The Jharkhand government has issued fresh directions to all departments, reiterating that court orders must be complied with fully and within stipulated timelines, in line with recent observations of the Supreme Court.

The directive, issued by the state’s Law Department, refers to orders passed by the Supreme Court in contempt cases earlier this year and outlines clear responsibilities for government officials and departments.

According to the circular, compliance with court orders is mandatory irrespective of whether a party agrees with the decision. In cases where implementation is considered difficult or impractical, concerned authorities have been directed to approach the appropriate court promptly rather than delay execution.

The communication also clarifies that filing review petitions or appeals does not justify non-compliance. The Supreme Court has criticised the practice of filing delayed appeals after initiation of contempt proceedings, describing it as an attempt to undermine judicial authority.

The directive further states that even third parties may face contempt action if they knowingly assist in violating a court order or obstruct the administration of justice. It cites judicial precedent to underline that awareness of an order and acting against it is sufficient to attract liability.

Officials have also been cautioned that administrative or logistical difficulties will not be accepted as valid reasons for disobedience. Departments have been asked to ensure timely compliance and avoid internal delays.

The circular emphasises that contempt courts are limited to examining whether orders have been complied with and cannot reopen or reinterpret the original judgment.

The state government has warned against the misuse of delay tactics, including ignoring court orders, postponing compliance and filing appeals at a late stage to stall proceedings.

Officials across departments have been instructed to ensure strict adherence to these directions in all matters involving court orders.

The directive signals a clear tightening of compliance expectations within the administrative system, with a focus on accountability and reduced tolerance for procedural delays in executing court orders.