The Supreme Court has strongly criticized three Rajasthan government officials for failing to promptly comply with its order directing the de-sealing of a Jaipur property, observing that disregard of judicial directions strikes at the foundation of the rule of law. However, after accepting their unconditional apologies and noting that compliance had finally been achieved, the Court discharged the contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a contempt petition filed by Bharat Kumar Badlani against officials of Jaipur's municipal administration. The petitioner alleged that authorities had deliberately failed to implement the Supreme Court's January 30, 2026 order directing them to de-seal his property and restore possession to him.
The property had been sealed during proceedings linked to allegations of unauthorized constructions within Jaipur's Walled City area. Several affected property owners had approached the Supreme Court after orders passed in a public interest litigation before the Rajasthan High Court.
According to the petitioner, despite representations, emails, and a legal notice, the authorities did not act on the Supreme Court's directions for nearly three months, forcing him to initiate contempt proceedings.
Court's Observations
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed serious concern over the conduct of the officials.
The Court observed that the record revealed "a disturbing pattern of evasion, inaction, and deliberate disregard" for its clear orders. It noted that public officials are expected to treat judicial directions with urgency and respect, not as matters that can be addressed at their convenience.
"The orders of the highest Court of this land" cannot be ignored, the Bench emphasized, warning that such conduct undermines public confidence in the justice system.
The Court further noted that despite repeated communications from the petitioner, compliance occurred only after contempt proceedings were initiated and the officials were summoned before the Court.
Demand Notice Draws Judicial Criticism
The Bench also took note of a demand notice issued by the Director of Local Bodies seeking more than ₹10.52 lakh from the petitioner as a purported premium or security deposit at the time the property was being de-sealed.
The Court described the move as "wholly improper" and said it appeared to have the character of a coercive and retaliatory act against the petitioner. Later, the authorities withdrew the demand and tendered an apology regarding its issuance.
Unconditional Apology and Final Decision
During the proceedings, Deputy Commissioner Seema Choudhary, Director-cum-Special Secretary Juikar Pratik Chandrashekhar, and Commissioner Om Prakash Kasera submitted unconditional affidavits of apology. They acknowledged the delay, expressed regret, and assured the Court that greater care would be taken in complying with judicial orders in the future.
Accepting the apologies, the Bench clarified that such acceptance should not be viewed as minimizing the seriousness of the officials' conduct.
"The contemnors are put on clear and unambiguous notice that any future default or negligence in the face of judicial orders... shall be viewed with the utmost severity," the Court observed.
Decision
Since the property had been de-sealed, possession restored, and the officials had tendered unconditional apologies, the Supreme Court accepted the apologies and discharged the contempt notice. The contempt petition was accordingly disposed of, while the main special leave petition remains pending.
Case Title: Bharat Kumar Badlani v. Seema Choudhary & Others
