Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 175
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
[@ SLP (C) NO. 17141 OF 2025]
MAHENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ARVIND KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the alleged contemnor is against an
interim order passed by the High Court directing
listing of the contempt petition for framing of
charges. The short facts leading to filing of the
contempt petition, followed by the direction as
indicated hereinabove are as follows.
3. The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a
private college sometime in the year 1993. We are
informed that the college was receiving certain
financial assistance from the State and this ended with
the advent of the Government policy dated 21.08.2000
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.20
19:02:07 IST
Reason:
not to grant and financial assistance to non-aided
Government colleges. Challenging this policy by
1
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, respondents sought
directions for sanction of the posts and also for
payment of salaries from out of Government exchequer.
By it order dated 07.10.2010, the High Court disposed
of the writ petition and directing the Director of
“to look into the matter and pass a speaking
Education,
and reasoned order in accordance with law”.
In
compliance, the Director of Education passed the
following order on 25.03.2011;
"In the light of the above policy decision
taken by the government, it is clear that
the government has completely banned the
creation of posts of teachers/ non-teaching
staff in non-government aided colleges. It
is not possible to create lecturer posts in
B.SC. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics
subjects in Ranveer Rananjay Postgraduate
College, Amethi, Sultanpur as desired by
the petitioners. Therefore, the
representation of the petitioners is hereby
dismissed and disposed of.
This order of disposal of the
representation is being issued in
compliance with the final order dated
7.10.2010 passed in the case number 1523
(S/B)/2010 of Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and
others against the State of U.P. and
others, filed in the Hon’ble High Court.
Dr. (Ramanand Prasad)
Director of Education
(Higher Education)
U.P., Allahabad.”
2
4. The above referred order was again challenged in
the second writ petition and it came to be disposed of
on 06.03.2013 with the following direction to
reconsider;
"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned order dated
25.03.2011 passed by the Director of Higher
Education, opposite party no. 2 with
consequential benefits. A writ in the
nature of mandamus is issued commanding the
respondents to reconsider petitioners'
claim with regard to payment of the regular
salary in the light of observations made
hereinbaove and pass a speaking and
reasoned order expeditiously say, within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
and communicate decision.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petition allowed."
5. Following the above referred direction to
reconsider the respondents claim, the authorities again
passed an order on 01.07.2013, yet again reiterating
their position as under;
"It is clear from the above that the
petitioners have been teaching in the
college in question only after the
implementation of the Government Order
dated 21.08.2000/30.08.2000 regarding the
ban on creation of posts and payment from
the salary payment account, after the
approval of the University, and their
salaries are being paid by the management
from its own sources as per the rules since
3
the year 2003, 2004 and 2007 under the
self-financed scheme. It is also clear from
the above that the petitioners/management
were aware that since the year 2000, there
is a policy ban on the State Government
giving any financial assistance in any form
for the salaries of teachers/non-teaching
staff and now new courses are being in new
colleges/old aided colleges under the self-
financed scheme and their salaries etc. are
to be paid by the management from its own
sources and not by the State Government.
Therefore, now there is no justification
for the petitioners or the management to
demand creation of posts and payment of
salary from the salary payment account.
(6). Therefore, in compliance with the
Order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.
1035(S/B)/2011, Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and
three others versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and others the joint Representations dated
25.03.2013 and 26.04.2013 of the
Petitioners Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and
three others are hereby disposed of.”
6. This order was again challenged in the third writ
petition and yet again the High Court by its order
dated 14.07.2023 passed the following order;
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion,
the writ petition deserves to be allowed
and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is
issued quashing the order dated 01.07.2013,
a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ
petition. The matter is remitted to the
respondent no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, U.P, Lucknow for passing
a fresh order keeping in view the judgment
and order dated 06.03.2013 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 1035 (SB) of
2011 as well as the discussions made above.
4
Let such an order be passed within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.”
7. In the meanwhile, respondents filed a contempt
petition alleging non-compliance of the order dated
14.07.2023. While the contempt petition was pending,
the department yet again rejected the claim by way of a
fresh order on 13.12.2023 and filed an affidavit of
compliance.
8. Further narration of facts would sadly indicate
that, as the “First Season” with multiple episodes of
rejection orders followed by successive ‘consider’ and
‘reconsider’ directions of the High Court reached
nowhere, commencement of contempt proceedings seem to
have only opened up the “Second Season” of inconclusive
directions for filing affidavits after affidavits.
9. Returning to the facts, the Director filed an
affidavit and the Court by its order dated 18.07.2024
rejected the affidavit and directed filing of fresh
affidavit of compliance.
10. In compliance, the authorities filed a
supplementary affidavit on 06.08.2024. The court was
not satisfied. However, instead of passing the
5
consequential order, the Court again directed the
authorities to file a fresh affidavit of compliance.
They did. Court again rejected the affidavit on
20.08.2024. This episodic consideration of affidavit
after affidavit continued for some more time when the
court issued a similar direction on 24.09.2024 and on
01.05.2025 as well.
11. We are informed that last of the Governmental
decision was on 09.05.2025 and in the following terms;
“7. The Faculty of Science was run by the
college management under the non-financed
scheme since 1993, thereafter this faculty
is being run under self-financed scheme.
The college management decides under which
scheme the various functions of the college
will be operated under various schemes run
by the Uttar Pradesh
government.
8. The new appointments of the petitioners
Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Dr. Aditya Bahadur
Singh, Dr. Manvendra Pratap Singh and Dr.
Ajay Kumar Singh have been made in the
college by the management after getting
approval from the university. For these new
appointments, the approval of the
university is given only after the
petitioners apply for the posts advertised
by the college and are successful in the
interview organized by the
college/university. At present, all these
teachers are receiving salary from
management sources by accepting the self-
financing scheme.
9. The petitioners have demanded by
6
attaching a supplementary affidavit in the
contempt case number-4006/2023 Arvind Kumar
Singh and others vs Shri Mahendra Prasad
Agarwal (IAS), Principal Secretary Higher
Education, for payment of salary on the
same basis as the lecturers working in
Acharya Narendradev Kisan Postgraduate
College, Babhanan, Gonda. In this regard,
it is noteworthy that after Acharya
Narendradev Kisan Postgraduate College,
Babhanan, Gonda was taken on the grant list
on 13.07.1976, posts have been created in
various courses on 19.05.1998 and the
candidates selected by the Commission have
been placed on the respective created
posts. Therefore, the cases of Ranveer
Rananjay PG College, Amethi and Narendradev
Kisan Postgraduate College, Babhanan, Gonda
are not of the same nature.
10. Therefore, after due consideration, the
demand for creation of posts of lecturers
in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at
the graduate level in the concerned college
and providing regular salary to the
petitioners is dismissed as baseless,
without facts and not in accordance with
the Government order and is hereby disposed
of.
11. This disposal order is being issued in
compliance with the order dated 14.07.2023
passed in Writ Petition No.2001132/2013,
Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and 03 others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others.”
12. It is in the above referred context that the High
Court passed the order impugned before us directing
listing of the contempt case for framing of charges.
13. Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad
practice our
reflection, not our laws, but the way we
7
laws our judicial remedies
and work . We are not be
mistaken as sermonising, for such episodic disposal
could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court.
Our endeavour is to ensure that we take notice of it
and adopt course correction.
14. There is no doubt about the fact that the “consider
jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted these days and if
we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of
the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system.
15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified,
relief must follow. The Constitutional or statutory
remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a
case deserves relief, it must be granted then and
there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities
is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the
relief. These are not matters of law, but of its
working and practice. Unlike law and its procedures,
good practices that evolve over a period of time are
far more precious than written laws, as it is in this
practice that we see acceptance and internalization of
the spirit of law. It is necessary to recognize,
nurture and develop good practices which become habits.
8
These habits come from the shared belief, values and
attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law. Legal
culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering
habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to keep
our remedies simple, effective and efficient.
16. Returning to the facts of our case, having examined
the orders passed by the High Court, we are of the
opinion that there has not been a clear and categorical
direction about existence of a right, its violation and
what exactly the government is to comply. Had there
been such clarity, the government would not have
choice. In fact, it should have no choice. It should
either comply, appeal or face contempt. It is necessary
for the courts to articulate its direction in clear
terms and also specify the method and manner of
compliance if necessary.
17. We have also noticed the recent tendency, a bad
practice so to say, to invoke contempt jurisdiction for
quick relief, even when appealable orders have already
been passed. In this very case, there is a detailed
order of the government dated 09.05.2025, and this has
remained unchallenged. Though the High Court passed the
9
order impugned before us on 28.05.2025, there is no
reference to the decision of the government dated
09.05.2025. It is necessary for the respondents to
challenge the said order.
18. The present litigation has spanned for over 16
years. It is therefore necessary to pass the following
order;
a) We permit the respondents to file a writ petition
against the order dated 09.05.2025. The said writ
petition will be taken up along with the contempt
proceedings pending before the High Court.
b) The High Court will first take up the writ petition
and pass final orders taking into account its earlier
orders passed on 7.10.2010, 06.03.2013 and 14.07.2013.
c) The High Court shall not remand the matter back to
the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective
of the government is clearly evident.
d) If it is satisfied with the merits of the matter, it
shall issue clear and categorical directions for
compliance. If not, it may dismiss the Writ Petition
with clear and simple reasons.
e) High Court will hear the learned counsels for the
10
State as well as the writ petitioners before passing
reasoned order.
19. In view of the long delay, we request the Hon’ble
Chief Justice to assign these matters to the
th
appropriate bench for final order by 30 April, 2026.
20. In view of the above directions, the Civil Appeal
stands disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 175
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
[@ SLP (C) NO. 17141 OF 2025]
MAHENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ARVIND KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the alleged contemnor is against an
interim order passed by the High Court directing
listing of the contempt petition for framing of
charges. The short facts leading to filing of the
contempt petition, followed by the direction as
indicated hereinabove are as follows.
3. The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a
private college sometime in the year 1993. We are
informed that the college was receiving certain
financial assistance from the State and this ended with
the advent of the Government policy dated 21.08.2000
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.02.20
19:02:07 IST
Reason:
not to grant and financial assistance to non-aided
Government colleges. Challenging this policy by
1
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, respondents sought
directions for sanction of the posts and also for
payment of salaries from out of Government exchequer.
By it order dated 07.10.2010, the High Court disposed
of the writ petition and directing the Director of
“to look into the matter and pass a speaking
Education,
and reasoned order in accordance with law”.
In
compliance, the Director of Education passed the
following order on 25.03.2011;
"In the light of the above policy decision
taken by the government, it is clear that
the government has completely banned the
creation of posts of teachers/ non-teaching
staff in non-government aided colleges. It
is not possible to create lecturer posts in
B.SC. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics
subjects in Ranveer Rananjay Postgraduate
College, Amethi, Sultanpur as desired by
the petitioners. Therefore, the
representation of the petitioners is hereby
dismissed and disposed of.
This order of disposal of the
representation is being issued in
compliance with the final order dated
7.10.2010 passed in the case number 1523
(S/B)/2010 of Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and
others against the State of U.P. and
others, filed in the Hon’ble High Court.
Dr. (Ramanand Prasad)
Director of Education
(Higher Education)
U.P., Allahabad.”
2
4. The above referred order was again challenged in
the second writ petition and it came to be disposed of
on 06.03.2013 with the following direction to
reconsider;
"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the impugned order dated
25.03.2011 passed by the Director of Higher
Education, opposite party no. 2 with
consequential benefits. A writ in the
nature of mandamus is issued commanding the
respondents to reconsider petitioners'
claim with regard to payment of the regular
salary in the light of observations made
hereinbaove and pass a speaking and
reasoned order expeditiously say, within a
period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
and communicate decision.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petition allowed."
5. Following the above referred direction to
reconsider the respondents claim, the authorities again
passed an order on 01.07.2013, yet again reiterating
their position as under;
"It is clear from the above that the
petitioners have been teaching in the
college in question only after the
implementation of the Government Order
dated 21.08.2000/30.08.2000 regarding the
ban on creation of posts and payment from
the salary payment account, after the
approval of the University, and their
salaries are being paid by the management
from its own sources as per the rules since
3
the year 2003, 2004 and 2007 under the
self-financed scheme. It is also clear from
the above that the petitioners/management
were aware that since the year 2000, there
is a policy ban on the State Government
giving any financial assistance in any form
for the salaries of teachers/non-teaching
staff and now new courses are being in new
colleges/old aided colleges under the self-
financed scheme and their salaries etc. are
to be paid by the management from its own
sources and not by the State Government.
Therefore, now there is no justification
for the petitioners or the management to
demand creation of posts and payment of
salary from the salary payment account.
(6). Therefore, in compliance with the
Order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.
1035(S/B)/2011, Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and
three others versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and others the joint Representations dated
25.03.2013 and 26.04.2013 of the
Petitioners Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and
three others are hereby disposed of.”
6. This order was again challenged in the third writ
petition and yet again the High Court by its order
dated 14.07.2023 passed the following order;
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion,
the writ petition deserves to be allowed
and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is
issued quashing the order dated 01.07.2013,
a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ
petition. The matter is remitted to the
respondent no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, U.P, Lucknow for passing
a fresh order keeping in view the judgment
and order dated 06.03.2013 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No. 1035 (SB) of
2011 as well as the discussions made above.
4
Let such an order be passed within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.”
7. In the meanwhile, respondents filed a contempt
petition alleging non-compliance of the order dated
14.07.2023. While the contempt petition was pending,
the department yet again rejected the claim by way of a
fresh order on 13.12.2023 and filed an affidavit of
compliance.
8. Further narration of facts would sadly indicate
that, as the “First Season” with multiple episodes of
rejection orders followed by successive ‘consider’ and
‘reconsider’ directions of the High Court reached
nowhere, commencement of contempt proceedings seem to
have only opened up the “Second Season” of inconclusive
directions for filing affidavits after affidavits.
9. Returning to the facts, the Director filed an
affidavit and the Court by its order dated 18.07.2024
rejected the affidavit and directed filing of fresh
affidavit of compliance.
10. In compliance, the authorities filed a
supplementary affidavit on 06.08.2024. The court was
not satisfied. However, instead of passing the
5
consequential order, the Court again directed the
authorities to file a fresh affidavit of compliance.
They did. Court again rejected the affidavit on
20.08.2024. This episodic consideration of affidavit
after affidavit continued for some more time when the
court issued a similar direction on 24.09.2024 and on
01.05.2025 as well.
11. We are informed that last of the Governmental
decision was on 09.05.2025 and in the following terms;
“7. The Faculty of Science was run by the
college management under the non-financed
scheme since 1993, thereafter this faculty
is being run under self-financed scheme.
The college management decides under which
scheme the various functions of the college
will be operated under various schemes run
by the Uttar Pradesh
government.
8. The new appointments of the petitioners
Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Dr. Aditya Bahadur
Singh, Dr. Manvendra Pratap Singh and Dr.
Ajay Kumar Singh have been made in the
college by the management after getting
approval from the university. For these new
appointments, the approval of the
university is given only after the
petitioners apply for the posts advertised
by the college and are successful in the
interview organized by the
college/university. At present, all these
teachers are receiving salary from
management sources by accepting the self-
financing scheme.
9. The petitioners have demanded by
6
attaching a supplementary affidavit in the
contempt case number-4006/2023 Arvind Kumar
Singh and others vs Shri Mahendra Prasad
Agarwal (IAS), Principal Secretary Higher
Education, for payment of salary on the
same basis as the lecturers working in
Acharya Narendradev Kisan Postgraduate
College, Babhanan, Gonda. In this regard,
it is noteworthy that after Acharya
Narendradev Kisan Postgraduate College,
Babhanan, Gonda was taken on the grant list
on 13.07.1976, posts have been created in
various courses on 19.05.1998 and the
candidates selected by the Commission have
been placed on the respective created
posts. Therefore, the cases of Ranveer
Rananjay PG College, Amethi and Narendradev
Kisan Postgraduate College, Babhanan, Gonda
are not of the same nature.
10. Therefore, after due consideration, the
demand for creation of posts of lecturers
in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at
the graduate level in the concerned college
and providing regular salary to the
petitioners is dismissed as baseless,
without facts and not in accordance with
the Government order and is hereby disposed
of.
11. This disposal order is being issued in
compliance with the order dated 14.07.2023
passed in Writ Petition No.2001132/2013,
Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and 03 others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others.”
12. It is in the above referred context that the High
Court passed the order impugned before us directing
listing of the contempt case for framing of charges.
13. Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad
practice our
reflection, not our laws, but the way we
7
laws our judicial remedies
and work . We are not be
mistaken as sermonising, for such episodic disposal
could feature even in the practice of Supreme Court.
Our endeavour is to ensure that we take notice of it
and adopt course correction.
14. There is no doubt about the fact that the “consider
jurisprudence”, so routinely adopted these days and if
we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of
the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system.
15. When a claim of a right is legal and justified,
relief must follow. The Constitutional or statutory
remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a
case deserves relief, it must be granted then and
there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities
is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the
relief. These are not matters of law, but of its
working and practice. Unlike law and its procedures,
good practices that evolve over a period of time are
far more precious than written laws, as it is in this
practice that we see acceptance and internalization of
the spirit of law. It is necessary to recognize,
nurture and develop good practices which become habits.
8
These habits come from the shared belief, values and
attitudes that breathe vitality into rule of law. Legal
culture integrates collective beliefs, fostering
habits. It is necessary and in fact compelling to keep
our remedies simple, effective and efficient.
16. Returning to the facts of our case, having examined
the orders passed by the High Court, we are of the
opinion that there has not been a clear and categorical
direction about existence of a right, its violation and
what exactly the government is to comply. Had there
been such clarity, the government would not have
choice. In fact, it should have no choice. It should
either comply, appeal or face contempt. It is necessary
for the courts to articulate its direction in clear
terms and also specify the method and manner of
compliance if necessary.
17. We have also noticed the recent tendency, a bad
practice so to say, to invoke contempt jurisdiction for
quick relief, even when appealable orders have already
been passed. In this very case, there is a detailed
order of the government dated 09.05.2025, and this has
remained unchallenged. Though the High Court passed the
9
order impugned before us on 28.05.2025, there is no
reference to the decision of the government dated
09.05.2025. It is necessary for the respondents to
challenge the said order.
18. The present litigation has spanned for over 16
years. It is therefore necessary to pass the following
order;
a) We permit the respondents to file a writ petition
against the order dated 09.05.2025. The said writ
petition will be taken up along with the contempt
proceedings pending before the High Court.
b) The High Court will first take up the writ petition
and pass final orders taking into account its earlier
orders passed on 7.10.2010, 06.03.2013 and 14.07.2013.
c) The High Court shall not remand the matter back to
the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective
of the government is clearly evident.
d) If it is satisfied with the merits of the matter, it
shall issue clear and categorical directions for
compliance. If not, it may dismiss the Writ Petition
with clear and simple reasons.
e) High Court will hear the learned counsels for the
10
State as well as the writ petitioners before passing
reasoned order.
19. In view of the long delay, we request the Hon’ble
Chief Justice to assign these matters to the
th
appropriate bench for final order by 30 April, 2026.
20. In view of the above directions, the Civil Appeal
stands disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
11