A litigant who takes inconsistent positions to obstruct compliance abuses the court’s process.

The petitioner-Society challenged the Registrar’s order dated 3 September 2026 proposing to enrol eligible members under the Society’s bye-laws for the purpose of conducting an election.

Earlier, in W.P. No. 114372 of 2015, the High Court had directed the Registrar to enrol new members and complete the process by 31 May 2025.

The Society challenged the Registrar’s subsequent steps to implement that direction, bringing the enrolment process to a standstill.

In another petition, the Society itself sought an order for enrolment, which was granted on 4 March 2025.

The Court noted that the Society had approached it on multiple occasions, both seeking enrolment and objecting to it, and had also initiated contempt proceedings concerning enrolment and the election.

Whether the Registrar’s order dated 3 September 2026 proposing enrolment of members should be quashed as contrary to the Court’s earlier directions.

Whether the petitioner’s inconsistent positions and repeated proceedings warranted rejection of its challenge as an abuse of the Court’s process.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principles that a litigant seeking discretionary writ relief must approach the Court with clean hands and must not abuse its process through inconsistent positions or proceedings that obstruct compliance with prior court orders.

The operative directions in W.P. No. 114372 of 2015 (8 January 2025) and W.P. No. 101233 of 2025 (4 March 2025) required the Registrar to proceed with enrolment of members.

The Court found that the Society had first sought enrolment, then challenged steps taken by the Registrar to carry it out, and subsequently relied on its own order seeking enrolment while continuing to raise objections.

Those challenges had obstructed implementation of the earlier directions.

The Registrar’s impugned action was an attempt to comply with those directions, and the Court accepted the Registrar’s affidavit explaining the steps taken and rejected the Society’s objections.

The Registrar was directed to personally complete enrolment within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order and thereafter proceed to complete the election in accordance with law.