The Allahabad high court has held Ghazipur district inspector of schools (DIOS) Prakash Singh guilty of contempt for failing to comply with a four-year-old interim order directing payment of an employee’s salary.
Rejecting the state’s plea to defer proceedings due to a pending stay vacation application, Justice Kshitij Shailendra delivered a strong defence of the rule of law and the dignity of the judiciary. Referring to the staggering pendency before constitutional courts, the court observed that courts cannot be expected to function as “super robots” while litigants treat active judicial orders as optional “decorative pieces of paper”.
The contempt application arose from a writ petition filed in 2017 by Radhey Shyam Yadav. On April 18, 2022, the writ court had directed the respondents to pay his salary during the pendency of the petition, but the order was not complied with.
Commenting on the heavy burden of litigation before the high court, Justice Shailendra observed: “In heavily burdened constitutional courts, like our Allahabad High Court, where around 400, 500, 600 and sometimes more than 800 cases are listed every day before every Judge, judicial proceedings may consume considerable time for disposal; sometimes years and sometimes decades also.”
“Still people all around may expect such overburdened judges to become ever-working super robots or super computers or super-human beings? If during such pendency, parties are permitted to openly defy operative directions, the administration of justice would descend into chaos and anarchy. The law does not countenance such audacity,” the court said in its order dated May 19.
{{/usCountry}}“Still people all around may expect such overburdened judges to become ever-working super robots or super computers or super-human beings? If during such pendency, parties are permitted to openly defy operative directions, the administration of justice would descend into chaos and anarchy. The law does not countenance such audacity,” the court said in its order dated May 19.
{{/usCountry}}The court emphasised that the dignity of the judiciary rests on public confidence and strict enforcement of its orders, warning against any erosion of constitutional governance.