Third-party aiding or abetting wilful disobedience of court orders is liable for contempt of court.

The Petitioners filed contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 20.05.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7023/2025 and 7024/2025.

The original order granted a three-month window for compliance, which expired on 20.08.2025.

Instead of complying or seeking extensions, the Respondents (officials of the Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce Federation and the State Government) engaged in internal correspondence and filed a defective Review Petition in October 2025, which remained uncured as of the hearing date.

The Respondents’ affidavit cited "administrative hurdles" and "logistical issues" as reasons for non-compliance.

The Court applied the principles of Civil and Criminal Contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

It relied on *Sita Ram v. Balbir @ Bali* (2017), establishing that non-parties who knowingly aid, abet, or obstruct the administration of justice by thwarting a court order are liable for contempt.

It further applied *Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV* (2006) and *J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar* (1996), which dictate that a contempt court cannot traverse beyond the original order or re-examine its merits; the order must be obeyed regardless of its perceived "rightness" unless stayed or modified by a higher forum.

The Court observed that the Respondents made the implementation of the 20.05.2025 order conditional upon the outcome of a Review Petition, which is legally impermissible.

The Court found that "administrative hurdles" do not excuse non-compliance if the party failed to approach the Court promptly for directions or extensions.

The delay in even initiating internal correspondence (starting only after two months of the three-month deadline had passed) evidenced a lack of real intent to comply.

The Court noted that the logistical hurdles had apparently been "figured out" only currently, proving that the Respondents had the capacity to purge the contempt but chose not to.

The Court characterized the filing of defective, belated reviews as a *modus operandi* to bring down the majesty of the law.

However, by way of "extraordinary indulgence" based on the Respondents' personal undertaking, the Court granted a final 15-day opportunity to ensure full compliance.

The Court ordered the substitution of the named Respondents with the current incumbents (Ms. Richa Sharma and Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu) to ensure accountability.

The Court directed that if compliance is not shown by 24.03.2026, charges will be formally framed.

Finally, the Registry was directed to place the defective Review Petition before the appropriate Bench and circulate the judgment to all Chief Secretaries to discourage the practice of using delayed appeals to defeat implementation.