Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has dismissed a special leave petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that declined to initiate contempt proceedings, while taking the occasion to caution High Courts against granting interim stays after refusing to entertain writ petitions on grounds of alternative remedy availability. The Court observed that once a High Court declines to exercise its writ jurisdiction, any consequential interim relief granted to facilitate the petitioner's approach to the alternate forum is legally impermissible and contrary to settled constitutional law.

The proceedings arose from a special leave petition challenging an order of the High Court of Bombay declining to initiate contempt proceedings on the ground that no case of civil contempt was made out. The petitioner had earlier instituted a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order against which a statutory revision under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 was available. The High Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy.

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

While allowing withdrawal, the High Court directed that no coercive steps be taken and stayed implementation of the order under challenge till 30th September 2025 to enable the petitioner to approach the revisional forum. Subsequently, contempt proceedings were sought alleging violation of the said directions. The High Court declined to initiate contempt. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution in situations where a writ petition is declined on the ground of an efficacious alternative remedy and examined the permissibility of granting interim protection in such circumstances.

The Court recorded that “The High Court of Bombay has declined to initiate proceedings for contempt by the impugned order dated 17th November, 2025, on the ground of absence of any element of ‘civil contempt’. We see no reason to interfere therewith; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.”

It further stated, “It is settled law that once the high court, upon application of mind, declines to entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is available but such remedy has not been pursued by the petitioner, the proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there.”

The Bench observed, “however, in such a circumstance when no final relief can effectively be granted on the petition, it is impermissible to pass an order in the nature of an interim relief [either by granting stay of operation of the order under challenge or by directing status quo to be maintained] till such time the aggrieved petitioner approaches the alternative forum.”

Referring to precedent, it recorded that “Such an order, as and when passed, would be in the teeth of a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta. Quoting the Constitution Bench in Madan Gopal Rungta, the Court reproduced: “Article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court has purported to do.” It also remarked, “An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit for (sic, or) proceeding.”

Further, it quoted: “But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The Bench concluded its observations by stating, “We trust that the high courts will duly take notice of these binding precedents and hope that no case of a similar nature arises in future for our consideration.”

Also Read: Mere Refusal To Marry And Non-Response To Messages Cannot Amount To Abetment Of Suicide; Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bai

“Delay condoned. The High Court of Bombay has declined to initiate proceedings for contempt by the impugned order dated 17th November, 2025, on the ground of absence of any element of ‘civil contempt’. We see no reason to interfere therewith; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.” The Bench also directed, “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

“We trust that the high courts will duly take notice of these binding precedents and hope that no case of a similar nature arises in future for our consideration.”

Case Title: Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 185
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 71183/2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma