Gone are the days when the word ‘contempt’ would send shivers down one’s spine, said the Madras High Court, while expressing dismay that the non-compliance with court orders has become so common that the court is flooded with contempt of court petitions, which were once a rarity.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan wrote: “I remember a senior counsel telling me some 20 years ago that during his younger days, court halls used to be jam-packed during contempt hearings because they were a rarity. Compliance was the norm, defiance an exception. He had lamented about the increase in the filing of contempt petitions. The situation is now worse.”
The judge also recalled how Justice Battu Devanand of the Andhra Pradesh High Court used to deal sternly with contempt of court petitions during the latter’s stint at the Madras High Court between April 2023 and July 2025. Justice Devanand never used to follow the procedure of closing contempt petitions by simply recording compliance reported after the filing of such petitions.
He used to pull up the contemnors even for delayed obedience of court orders. For him, “compliance must be strictly in consonance with the court’s order. No deviation was permitted, howsoever slight. I get a feeling that all of us (judges of Madras High Court) must emulate the path shown by His Lordship,” Justice Swaminathan said.
The observations were made before issuing statutory notice, requiring the presence of contemnors, to two IAS officers, S.P. Amrith and Krishna Unni, for having reportedly disobeyed an interim stay granted by the High Court on May 29, 2026, against the transfer of a government Veterinary Assistant Surgeon A. Senthilkumar from one district to another.
During the hearing of a contempt of court petition filed by the assistant surgeon, a government counsel brought to the notice of the court that Mr. Amrith had served as Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services till July 15, 2026, and thereafter, he was succeeded by Mr. Unni.
After observing that both officers were answerable to the court for not having obeyed the court order, the judge granted time for the government counsel to obtain instructions from them. “Even though I waited for close to 10 minutes, the learned Government Counsel was unable to obtain instructions from the officials concerned. When the Secretary to Government is figuring as the first respondent, I am shocked to note that the officials are so casual,” the judge observed.
He went on to state: “Though in contempt proceedings, statutory notice can be straightaway issued, we (judges) rarely do so. We call upon the Government Counsel to state their position. We, however, expect the officials to be ready with instructions. The petitioner ought to have been posted after the grant of interim order... I express my displeasure over the conduct of the officials. Even though the government counsel tried her best to reach the officials over phone, the officials concerned were not available.”
Published - August 05, 2026 12:32 pm IST
Source: The Hindu - India News
