The Supreme Court has drawn a sharp line between careless delay and deliberate defiance, ruling that contempt of court cannot be invoked merely because compliance came late—unless the delay carried a willful or obstinate intent.
A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai with Justice AG Masih was weighing a petition brought by a former bank manager, frustrated after a court-directed payout wasn’t made within the three-month deadline. The bank, now merged with Punjab National Bank, admitted the delay but argued it stemmed from administrative chaos tied to the merger and difficulties in unearthing decades-old records, not from a refusal to comply.
Justice Masih, writing for the Court, acknowledged the lapse but rejected the contempt charge. The ruling stressed that contempt requires the presence of mens rea—a deliberate and contumacious intent. “While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in following the Court’s orders,” the bench observed, “the material on record does not reveal that the delay was rooted in wilful defiance. Mere delay, without malice, is not enough.”
But the Court was equally clear about the limits of contempt proceedings. The ex-banker had attempted to tack on a fresh demand for pension benefits within the contempt petition. The bench refused outright, warning that contempt jurisdiction is not a backdoor for asserting new claims or seeking remedies never adjudicated in the first place.
Quoting the 2002 precedent in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, the Court reminded litigants that contempt is not a substitute for proper adjudication. “The prayer for pension,” it said, “cannot be entertained at this stage.”
The case—A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) through LRs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao & Another—thus reinforces two principles: contempt requires intent, and the forum cannot be stretched into a new battleground for unrelated claims.
