Even non-parties liable for contempt if they facilitate disobedience of court orders, says SC

Even persons who were not parties to the original proceedings can be held liable for contempt if they knowingly aid or facilitate disobedience of a court order, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A Bench led by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that once an authority became aware of a court order, they were duty-bound to act to ensure compliance and such an authority involved in the chain of implementation could not escape responsibility by arguing that it was not a party to the original proceedings.

Any deliberate inaction or assistance on the part of a non-party in non-compliance can amount to contempt of court, it said.

Dealing with contempt petitions over alleged non-compliance with its May 20, 2025 judgment relating to officials of the Chhattisgarh Government, the top court clarified that contempt jurisdiction extended beyond the parties named in a judgment and could cover any authority whose conduct frustrated implementation of a court order.

Holding that a prima facie case of contempt of court was made out against officials, including against those not originally parties to the proceedings but aware of the order and involved in its implementation, it granted a final opportunity for compliance.

The top court said a non-party did not commit contempt by technically breaching the order, but by acting in a manner that interfered with the enforcement of the court’s and any such person or authority required to cooperate in implementation was obligated to do so and cannot take the plea that it was not originally a party to the proceedings.

The case related to contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with its May 20, 2025 judgment directing the Chhattisgarh authorities and the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Federation to take specified steps, including the creation of a supernumerary post of Godown Keeper in three months.

However, the authorities failed to implement the order within the stipulated time frame and tried to make compliance conditional on a review petition filed after expiry of the compliance period.

The top court directed that copies of its verdict be also circulated to the Union Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training; the Chief Secretaries to all State Governments, Union Territory Administrations and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, with a direction to take note of its directions on contempt petitions where officers stood arrayed as individuals.