LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shiv Darshan Singh v. Rakesh Tiwari, Director General, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) & Ors.

Contempt Petition (Civil) · 2019 INSC 735Decided 9 Jul 2019
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 697 of 2017
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

The Supreme Court had earlier, in a 2012 judgment concerning the protected monument Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, laid down that authorities could not permit reconstruction of a building under the guise of "renovation" and directed that the Central Government/ASI act only in accordance with that judgment's observations when exercising powers under the Ancient Monuments Act. The petitioner later filed this contempt petition alleging that the ASI, NDMC, and private respondents had violated that judgment by permitting (and carrying out) renovation/finishing work on an existing structure near the monument, and sought a direction to demolish the structure. The Court examined the official file noting and permissions granted by ASI (2013) and NDMC (2014) for finishing work on the pre-existing structure, which were later revoked by NDMC in 2016, with a related challenge to that revocation still pending before the Delhi High Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that its 2012 judgment had never specifically directed demolition of the structure as it existed at that time, and that the only enforceable, specific direction was that authorities not act under certain statutory provisions except in accordance with the judgment's observations. Since the permissions for finishing work had already been revoked by NDMC's 2016 order (even before the contempt petition was filed), the Court found that the authorities could not be said to be in violation of its earlier directions, and declined to use contempt jurisdiction to order demolition, noting that the real dispute over the structure's status was already pending before the Delhi High Court in the respondents' writ petition. It therefore closed the contempt petition, clarifying it had examined the matter only from the narrow lens of whether contempt was made out, and requested the High Court to dispose of the pending related matters expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Lesson Learnt

Contempt jurisdiction is a narrow remedy limited to enforcing the specific, express directions of an earlier court order: it cannot be used as a backdoor to obtain new relief (like a demolition order) that the original judgment never actually granted, especially when the underlying dispute is already being litigated in a separate pending proceeding.

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