The Supreme Court of India recently set aside the Calcutta High Court's order that referred a contempt case to mediation without the consent of both parties. The apex court ruled that mediation is a voluntary process and cannot be forced upon any party against their will, especially in contempt proceedings where the matter involves compliance with judicial orders.
Background of the Case
The case arose when Rupa and Co. Limited and another (the appellants) filed a contempt petition against the State of West Bengal for failing to comply with a judicial order. Despite the appellants' objections, the High Court referred the matter to mediation based on the State’s submission that it was willing to offer an alternative resolution.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih expressed strong reservations about this approach, emphasizing that mediation should only be undertaken when both parties consent.
Read Also:- NDPS Cases: No Infirmity If Forensic Lab Sends Report Directly To Trial Court, Says Calcutta HC
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of upholding judicial authority and ensuring compliance with court orders. It noted:
"When the High Court itself, on multiple occasions in the contempt proceedings, found that the State was bound to comply with the writ of mandamus issued on February 10, 2020, it could not have referred the matter for mediation."
The court further clarified that:
"Mediation cannot be thrust upon either of the parties. The High Court's order directing mediation, despite clear opposition from the appellants, is legally untenable."
Key Facts of the Case
- The dispute originated from a 2011 agreement between the appellants and the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO), which promised to convey a specific plot of land on a freehold basis.
- In 2012, HIDCO revised its decision, offering the land on a 99-year lease instead of a freehold transfer, citing the Model Code of Conduct during elections as the reason.
- The appellants challenged this change, and in 2019, a division bench of the High Court ruled in their favor, declaring the State’s action arbitrary.
- When the State failed to comply with the High Court’s ruling, the appellants filed a contempt petition.
- Instead of enforcing compliance, the High Court referred the matter to mediation, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s mediation order, stating:
"The dignity of the judiciary requires strict adherence to its commands. A writ issued under Article 226 of the Constitution must be followed in letter and spirit."
Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Secretary of West Bengal to ensure compliance with the High Court’s 2020 order. It warned that failure to do so would require the Chief Secretary’s personal appearance before the court on March 3, 2025.
This ruling reinforces the principle that:
- Mediation requires mutual consent – Courts cannot impose mediation without agreement from all involved parties.
- Judicial orders must be respected – The State cannot bypass compliance by seeking alternative resolutions.
- Contempt proceedings demand strict adherence – Mediation cannot be used to delay or dilute the effect of a court’s directive.
Case Title: RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS FIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS
