The Supreme Court has overturned a Calcutta High Court order that attempted to impose mediation in a contempt case without the consent of both parties. The ruling reinforced the principle that mediation must be voluntary, particularly in legal disputes involving defiance of judicial directives.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih took issue with the High Court’s decision, which referred a contempt petition to mediation instead of holding the State accountable for failing to comply with a judicial order. The move had been made despite objections from the appellant, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“When the High Court itself had repeatedly found the State in violation of a mandamus order issued on February 10, 2020, and had even issued a notice to the Chief Secretary, it could not then divert the matter to mediation,” the Supreme Court observed.
The controversy stemmed from a land allotment dispute in which the West Bengal government had initially promised to grant a freehold plot to the appellants but later changed the terms to a 99-year lease. In 2019, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, deeming the State’s actions arbitrary. However, when the State failed to comply with the ruling, a contempt petition was filed.
Despite resistance from the appellants’ counsel, the High Court directed mediation based solely on the State’s willingness to offer an alternative plot. The Supreme Court called this approach “totally untenable in law,” emphasizing that mediation cannot be imposed unilaterally.
Reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court ordered the State to comply with the original judgment. If compliance is not met, the Chief Secretary has been instructed to appear before the Court on March 3.
“The majesty of law demands obedience to the High Court’s command under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when it has not been interfered with by this Court,” the Supreme Court stated firmly.