LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Avishek Raja & Ors. v. Sanjay Gupta and connected matters

Contempt Petition (Civil) · 2017 INSC 488Decided 19 Jun 2017
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 411 of 2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 972 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 153 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 103 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 152 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 158 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 50 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 107 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 154 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 102 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 120 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 111 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 106 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 101 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 112 of 2015, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 148 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 157 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 110 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 128 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 129 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 109 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 108 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 105 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 149 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 127 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 134 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 155 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 174 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 113 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6277 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 133 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 8429 of 2016, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 299 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 288 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 284 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 286 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 287 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 283 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 290 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 11857 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 285 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 12967 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 13520 of 2017, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 18567 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 20025 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 21713 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 23037 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 23904 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25423 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25424 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25425 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25426 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25427 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25430 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25431 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25432 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25577 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25578 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25579 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25581 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 25583 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 26077 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 26078 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 26256 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 27528 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 291 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 450 of 2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 33441 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 33442 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 34 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 36110 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 36227 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 33 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 36810 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 46 of 2015, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 571 of 2014, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 998 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 40055 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 572 of 2014, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 2015
Justice Ranjan Gogoi · Justice Navin Sinha

Background

This was the lead contempt petition (Diary No. 23540/2014) in a large batch of 83 contempt petitions and 3 writ petitions filed by newspaper journalists and non-journalist employees across the country, all raising the same grievance: that newspaper establishments were not fully paying wages and arrears as recommended by the Majithia Wage Board and accepted by the Central Government in 2011, a scheme the Supreme Court had already upheld as valid in a 2014 judgment (passed in the main Writ Petition (Civil) No. 246 of 2011). Employees accused their employers of wilfully disobeying that 2014 judgment by withholding dues, citing disputes over "variable pay," whether the award covered contractual staff, and whether financial hardship excused non-payment. Separately, three writ petitions alleged employees faced arbitrary transfer or termination for pressing these demands.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that none of the newspaper establishments could be held guilty of contempt, because their non-payment stemmed from a genuine (even if mistaken) difference of understanding about what the 2014 judgment and the Wage Board Award actually required, not from wilful, deliberate defiance of the Court's order, which is the legal threshold for contempt. Having found no contempt, the Court went on to settle the underlying disputes to prevent further litigation: it clarified that the Award's wage benefits apply equally to employees who had signed undertakings to retain older, lower pay scales (since Section 16 of the Act lets employees accept only terms more favourable than the Act, not less), that the Award covers contractual as well as regular employees, that "variable pay" must be included when calculating other allowances, and that only genuine "heavy cash losses" (not mere financial difficulty) can excuse payment of arrears. The writ petitions alleging wrongful transfer/termination were left for the appropriate statutory forums (such as under the Industrial Disputes Act) rather than being decided directly by the Supreme Court under Article 32. All 83 contempt petitions and the 3 connected writ petitions were disposed of on this basis, with future implementation disputes directed to be resolved through the statutory recovery mechanism under Section 17 of the Act rather than further contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Lesson Learnt

Contempt of court requires proof of deliberate, wilful disobedience, not just non-compliance born of a genuine, arguable disagreement about what a court order means. Where the real problem is ambiguity in an order's scope, courts will often clarify the order's meaning going forward rather than punish the disputing party for contempt; and disputes about individual service conditions like transfer or termination are generally better resolved through specialised labour forums than through a writ petition in the Supreme Court.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case