Govt, its agencies mustn’t be seen as lawbreakers, violators of court orders

The governments and its functionaries are bestowed with the task, and the power, to implement the laws. They must not be seen as lawbreakers and violators of court orders through blatant exhibition of hostility to judicial directions.

The states and its agencies have, to a large extent, displayed stubborn unwillingness to comply with the Punjab and Haryana High Court orders on the removal of “designations, description of offices, and unauthorised emblems” from the government and personal vehicles of its authorities.

While the High Court and the judicial officers acted with an acute sense of promptitude to remove “words not permissible under the law” and the man on the street displayed celerity to do away with stickers announcing things such as Army and press from their private vehicles, the governments and some of the ‘sarkari afsars’ made it a point to exhibit their reluctance to adhere to the court fiats by carrying along with them their weighty designations.

The law enforcing agencies, under the circumstances, appear to be thinking in terms of “what pleases the Prince has the force of law” by not initiating action against the violators, who happen to be men in power. The police and its senior functionaries are not permitted by the law to do so. The law has to be observed through requisite respect for law.

It is trite to say that the courts should not display “unnecessary and uncalled for hurry, unjustified haste and an unreasonable sense of promptitude” to deal with cases, including public interest litigations. But it is equally true that the respondent-states are required to do exactly the opposite when it comes to compliance of the court directions — show eagerness and alacrity.

Once the court, in its wisdom, has passed directions in larger public interest and the directives are reasonable and not repugnant to the laws, the statutes in force and the people’s welfare, the orders should be complied with not just in letter, but in spirit as well. The state and its agencies should rather steer clear of the temptation to even mount a challenge to the directions when the intent behind the same is public interest.

In the case in hand, the High Court only ordered the enforcement of the existing laws and did not introduce any clause or concept that was not enforceable or was alien to jurisprudence. The High Court in its order asserted: “Words like court, Army, police, press etc. are written on private vehicles, which is not permissible under the law”.

Non-compliance here is also reflective of a larger malady and involves general tendency among the powers that be to ignore judicial directions as long as they possibly can, even though their conduct borders around contempt. It also brings to the fore the unfortunate possibility of breakdown of Constitutional machinery.

The fact that it is not a sole aberration, but exposes a larger and growing problem of predisposition towards non-compliance, is an actuality that has never been in the sphere of debate. The High Court is already flooded with contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of judicial orders against the government and its functionaries.

The governments must remember that wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court, or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court, constitutes a contempt of court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Besides this, every High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is a court of record and has all the powers of such a court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The statutory provisions are binding on everybody, including the Central Government, state governments and all local or other authorities within the territory of India, and they are duty-bound to obey the court judgment/orders.

Indeed, the courts are guardians of the Constitution, and their own rights and dignity. The law that has crystallised over the years also makes it clear that the court is well within its jurisdiction to order punishment for contempt for itself and the subordinate judiciary. The courts may not be endowed with unbridled rights under the contempt Act, but the powers are in abundance. The courts have time and again made it clear that if its directions/orders are not followed by the appropriate authorities, it will be end of rule of law.

Justice Louis Brandeis of the US Supreme Court in “Olmstead v. United States” observed: “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy”.

The fact that non-initiation of action by the courts for non-compliance of directives further encourages passivity and fails to act as a deterrent for others is no more in the realm of debate. The ‘we-will-get-away-with-it’ syndrome, stemming from the fact that those indulging in disdain are not taken to task once they comply with the orders after the issuance of notice on contempt pleas, has done little good to the institution.

The government, as such, needs to lead by example and be the first to comply with court orders encouraging others to follow.

Bench Mark
Law, and the order
Post-divorce, wife can’t be equally burdened with kids’ expenses
by Saurabh Malik

Equality of men and women in a marital relationship does not mean equal sharing of burden once they move towards legal parting of ways. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a wife cannot be equally burdened with expenses to take care of the children. The Bench has also ruled that wife’s greater earning would not preclude the father from his responsibility and duty to maintain minor children. “A child does not only require money for upbringing. A lot of time and effort goes in upbringing. It would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for expenses of the child. In fact, a mother, who has custody of a child, not only spends money on the upbringing of the child, but at the same time she is required to spend substantial time and effort in bringing up the child. “Her mobility is completely restricted. One cannot put value to the time and effort put in by the mother in upbringing of the child. No doubt, the mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of a child, but the expenses cannot be divided equally between the two,” the High Court ruled.