Contempt petition stands closed upon satisfactory filing of compliance affidavit by respondents.

The petitioners, sixty-eight Primary Teachers led by Anuradha Sejwal, filed a contempt petition against the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other education officials.

The petition alleged non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions issued in OA No. 3267/2025 dated August 27, 2025.

During the hearing on April 24, 2026, the respondents submitted a compliance affidavit to the Bench.

1. Whether the respondents willfully disobeyed the directions of the Tribunal issued in OA No. 3267/2025.

2. Whether the order dated March 25, 2026, issued by the respondents constitutes sufficient compliance to discharge the contempt proceedings.

The court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically regarding the purging of contempt through substantial compliance with judicial orders.

The core principle dictates that if a contemnor takes affirmative steps to implement the court's directions and produces evidence of an official order to that effect, the grievance in a contempt petition is considered redressed.

The Tribunal examined the compliance affidavit and the accompanying order dated March 25, 2026, presented by the respondents' counsel.

The Bench noted that this order was specifically issued to satisfy the directions previously mandated in OA No. 3267/2025.

Since the administrative action required by the original judgment had been performed, the Tribunal reasoned that no further cause of action remained for maintaining the contempt proceedings.

Consequently, C.P. No. 172/2026 was disposed of as complied with.