Explained: Why HC says execution delays beyond 6 months will now amount to contempt of SC judgment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if execution proceedings are not disposed of within six months from the date of filing, it will be treated as contempt of the Supreme Court’s binding judgment in the case of Rahul S Shah versus Jinendra Kumar Gandhi. Justice Sudeepti Sharma categorically said that any adjournments or repeated indulgence in such matters would not be tolerated. Importantly, the court clarified that accountability for delay would not remain confined to judicial officers alone — state officers stalling compliance would also be culpable of disobedience of the Supreme Court’s directions.

What did the Supreme Court say in Rahul S Shah’s case?

In its 2021 ruling, the apex court laid down mandatory guidelines for all executing courts across India. It directed that execution petitions should ordinarily be disposed of within six months from filing. An extension beyond that period could only be granted by recording specific reasons in writing. The judgment was delivered to tackle the systemic problem of decree-holders waiting for years, sometimes decades, to enjoy the fruits of decrees obtained after prolonged trials.

Why is this significant?

Execution is the final stage of civil litigation — where the winning party (decree-holder) seeks to enforce the court’s decree against the losing party (judgment-debtor). But in India, this stage is often the most difficult, marred by delays, adjournments and procedural hurdles. As the Privy Council had observed nearly 150 years ago: “The difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree.”

The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly asserted that a decree-holder is entitled to reap the benefits of the decree expeditiously, and unnecessary delay amounts to denial of justice.

What prompted the HC ruling now?

Justice Sharma was dealing with a case where an execution filed in 2015 at Guruharsahai was still pending. The executing court had sought at least five extensions between September 2023 and February 2025, citing reasons such as non-appearance of government counsel, awaiting police assistance, and even seeking “legal opinion” from the District Attorney. The high court found such excuses legally untenable, noting they reflected a “casual approach” and even “incompetency.”

Justice Sharma observed: “Since 2015 till 2025 — almost a decade — the executing court is not able to perform its duty. This amounts to contempt of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rahul S Shah’s case… Such conduct demonstrates a clear departure from the discipline mandated by the Supreme Court and amounts to permitting dilatory tactics contrary to binding directions.”

What next?

The high court has directed that this order be circulated to all District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate. This systemic direction means that henceforth, any adjournment or extension beyond six months without cogent reasons on record could expose judicial officers and even state officials to proceedings for wilful disobedience — i.e. contempt.

The broader picture

This ruling sends a clear message: execution cannot remain the weakest link in the justice delivery chain. For litigants, it provides hope that the decree they win in court will not turn into a hollow victory. For officers of the state and judiciary, it sets a strict timeline backed with contempt consequences, thereby tightening accountability at every level.