Contempt petition closed upon demonstrated compliance measures, with liberty to reapproach for inordinate delay.

The petitioner filed a contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience by the respondents of the Madurai Bench’s order dated 20.07.2021 in W.P. (MD) No. 6852 of 2021.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services filed an affidavit on behalf of the second respondent.

The affidavit stated that steps were being taken to fill vacancies in the posts of Additional Superintendent, Social Case Work Expert and Psychologist.

It further disclosed that promotion panels for Additional Superintendent were issued as “Nil” for 2022–2026 because eligible Jailers were unavailable, while candidates were expected to be included in the 2027–2028 panel.

It also stated that vacancies of Social Case Work Experts and Psychologists were being filled through sanctioned posts, recruitment proposals and government consideration.

Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the order dated 20.07.2021 in W.P. (MD) No. 6852 of 2021 so as to warrant contempt action under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Whether the steps disclosed in the affidavit constituted sufficient compliance, or progress towards compliance, to justify closing the contempt petition.

The Court proceeded under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which empowers the High Court to punish contempt of court, including disobedience of its orders.

The relevant governing principle is that contempt jurisdiction is attracted only where disobedience of a binding judicial direction is established and is wilful; bona fide compliance or demonstrable steps towards compliance may justify closure of proceedings.

The Court examined the affidavit filed on behalf of the prison authorities and noted the concrete administrative measures taken to address the vacancies identified in the earlier proceedings.

In relation to Additional Superintendents, the non-preparation of panels for 2022–2026 was explained by the absence of eligible Jailers, with prospective inclusion of eligible candidates in the 2027–2028 panel.

In relation to Social Case Work Experts and Psychologists, the authorities had sanctioned posts, filled several vacancies and initiated recruitment and governmental approval processes for the remaining posts.

On that basis, the Court found that measures were being taken to fill the vacancies and did not proceed to record contempt or impose punishment.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Court again if there was any inordinate delay in completing the stated measures.