Strict Adherence to Court-Ordered Payment Timelines Essential to Avoid Contempt of Courts Act Sanctions

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the court’s directions dated 07.01.2026 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 40/2024 and a subsequent order dated 30.03.2026.

These orders directed the National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation (NSFDC) to release fellowship arrears to the Petitioner (Student ID: UP02003308) under the 'National Fellowship Scheme for SC Students'.

The Respondent filed a compliance affidavit stating that the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MOSJ&E) granted approval on 20.04.2026.

The Respondent explained that delays were procedural, involving the linking of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) to the Scholarship and Fellowship Management Portal (SFMP) and awaiting Ministry approval.

1. Whether the Respondent’s failure to disburse the fellowship arrears within the initially stipulated timeline constitutes a willful disobedience of the court’s orders warranting action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

2. Whether the procedural steps involving third parties (AMU/MOSJ&E) justify the delay in compliance.

The court's jurisdiction was exercised under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Judicial orders must be complied with in letter and spirit, and any "breach" or "delay" by an implementing agency—even one acting as a "conduit" for government funds—may entail penal consequences if the delay is not justified by procedural necessity.

The court also applied the doctrine of undertaking, wherein a party's assurance to the court to perform a specific act within a new timeframe can stay the initiation of formal contempt proceedings.

The Court examined the Respondent's compliance affidavit, which detailed a multi-step digital workflow involving the SFMP portal, AMU, and Canara Bank.

The Respondent argued that as an "implementing agency," it was dependent on the MOSJ&E for approval, which was only received on 20.04.2026 after multiple follow-ups.

The Court noted that while the process for disbursement had been "initiated," the actual credit to the Petitioner’s account remained pending.

Rather than immediately punishing the Respondent for the past delay, the Court accepted the Respondent’s assurance and "undertaking" that the procedural requirements would be followed expeditiously.

The Court explicitly linked any future "lapse" or "delay" to a prima facie breach of court orders, thereby maintaining judicial pressure to ensure final payment.

The Court held that any further breach or delay would be construed as a formal violation of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Petitioner was granted the liberty to revive the petition in case of non-compliance, and the matter was listed for a compliance report on 19.08.2026.