Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe has flagged the growing practice among courts of repeatedly directing authorities to "reconsider" matters without conclusively deciding the rights of parties, describing it as a counterproductive exercise that generates endless cycles of litigation. The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a long-running dispute over salary regularisation claims of college lecturers against the State, which had remained unresolved for over sixteen years through successive remand orders. The Court noted that when courts remand matters, directions must clearly identify the existence of a right, its violation, and the precise obligation cast upon the authority. Disposing of the appeal, the Court directed the High Court to finally adjudicate the matter on merits without any further remand, and to pass clear, categorical directions upon satisfaction of the petitioners' claims.

The appeal arose from an interim order of the High Court directing listing of a contempt petition for framing of charges against a government official. The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college in 1993. The college had been receiving financial assistance from the State, which ceased following a Government policy dated 21.08.2000 banning financial assistance to non-aided Government colleges. The respondents invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking sanction of posts and payment of salaries from the Government exchequer.

Also Read: Defunct Scheme Of Arrangement Cannot Stall CIRP Under IBC; Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Abeyance Order

The High Court initially directed the Director of Education to pass a speaking and reasoned order. The Director rejected the claim citing the policy ban. Subsequent writ petitions resulted in orders quashing the rejection and directing reconsideration. The authorities reiterated their stand, stating that the lecturers were appointed under a self-financed scheme and were being paid by the management. A contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance. During its pendency, further rejection orders were passed, culminating in a Government order dated 09.05.2025 again denying creation of posts and salary payment. The High Court proceeded to list the contempt case for framing of charges, leading to the present appeal.

The Court recorded that “Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not our laws, but the way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies.” It stated that “There is no doubt about the fact that the ‘consider jurisprudence’, so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression - to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system.”

On grant of relief, the Court observed, “When a claim of a right is legal and justified, relief must follow.” It further stated, “The Constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be.” The Bench added, “Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief.”

Addressing judicial practice, it recorded, “It is necessary and in fact compelling to keep our remedies simple, effective and efficient.” The Court found that “there has not been a clear and categorical direction about existence of a right, its violation and what exactly the government is to comply.” It stated, “Had there been such clarity, the government would not have choice. In fact, it should have no choice. It should either comply, appeal or face contempt.” The Bench further observed, “It is necessary for the courts to articulate its direction in clear terms and also specify the method and manner of compliance if necessary.”

On invocation of contempt jurisdiction, the Court noted, “We have also noticed the recent tendency, a bad practice so to say, to invoke contempt jurisdiction for quick relief, even when appealable orders have already been passed.” Referring to the Government’s order dated 09.05.2025, it recorded that “there is a detailed order of the government dated 09.05.2025, and this has remained unchallenged.” It concluded, “It is necessary for the respondents to challenge the said order.”

The Court ordered, “We permit the respondents to file a writ petition against the order dated 09.05.2025. The said writ petition will be taken up along with the contempt proceedings pending before the High Court. The High Court will first take up the writ petition and pass final orders taking into account its earlier orders passed on 7.10.2010, 06.03.2013 and 14.07.2013. The High Court shall not remand the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective of the government is clearly evident.”

Also Read: Gravity Of Offence Alone Cannot Sustain Denial Of Premature Release Once Policy Threshold Is Crossed: Delhi High Court Orders Release Of Bangladeshi Life Convict

“If it is satisfied with the merits of the matter, it shall issue clear and categorical directions for compliance. If not, it may dismiss the Writ Petition with clear and simple reasons. High Court will hear the learned counsels for the State as well as the writ petitioners before passing reasoned order.”

“In view of the long delay, we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to assign these matters to the appropriate bench for final order by 30th April, 2026.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Vaseem, Adv. Mr. Anand Ranjan, AOR.

Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 175
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 [@ SLP (C) No. 17141 of 2025]
Bench: Justice P.S.  Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe