"‘Forgiveness Over Punishment’: Meghalaya High Court Closes Contempt Against Don Bosco School Management, Records ‘Genuine Remorse’ and Allows Reconstruction Under Conditions"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Meghalaya has disposed of contempt proceedings against members of the Board of Management of St. Anthony’s Lower Primary School at Don Bosco Square, Shillong, who demolished the school building during the Court’s vacation period. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh, recorded the affidavits submitted by the contemnors tendering an unqualified apology and stating their respect for the Court. The Bench permitted the school management to proceed with reconstruction, provided that the work complies with specific conditions previously directed by the Court on 24 February 2025.
The Court, while noting the genuineness of the apology and the institutional status of the contemnors, decided to close the matter without imposing sanctions. The Bench further directed the management to strictly adhere to its previous order regarding the rebuilding of the demolished structure.
The public interest litigation and connected contempt proceedings stemmed from the demolition of St. Anthony’s Lower Primary School, located at Don Bosco Square, Shillong. The petitioner, Raphael Warji, a resident of Mawpun, Golflinks, Shillong, brought the matter before the Court. The respondents included the State of Meghalaya, represented by its Chief Secretary; the Department of Arts & Culture, represented by its Secretary; the Meghalaya Heritage Authority, represented by its Secretary; St. Anthony’s Lower Primary School, represented by its Principal; and the Director of Don Bosco Technical School, Shillong.
The Division Bench had, through its order dated 24 February 2025, directed the members of the Board of Management to file affidavits addressing the circumstances surrounding the demolition. The Court specifically posed the following queries: “Now, the question which seeks an answer is this: the order passed by us was made on 9th December, 2024. The school management had full knowledge of it. The Court despite being closed for the Christmas vacation, had a vacation bench sitting periodically. Why this allegedly imminent danger to the building and the need to demolish it was not brought to the notice of the vacation bench and appropriate leave obtained to demolish the building? When the matter was made returnable on the very next day of reopening of the Court on 28th January, 2025, why during the vacation of the Court, the building had to be demolished, when it was allowed to stand for all this while?”
In response, affidavits were filed by the alleged contemnors, members of the Board of Management of the school. The affidavits recorded that they held “the greatest respect for this Court.” They further stated that they “had and have no intention of disobeying the orders passed by it and every intention of obeying them.” The contemnors tendered “an unqualified apology” and “prayed for forgiveness.”
The affidavits further explained that on 4 January 2025, the building was found to be tilting. Upon seeking the advice of a contractor, who opined that the structure posed imminent danger to life and property, the management decided to proceed with the demolition. The affidavits recorded that “as the danger according to the opinion of the contractor was imminent, the Court could not be approached and demolition accomplished.”
The Division Bench, after examining the affidavits, recorded, “We do not find this explanation wholly convincing.” The Court took note of the fact that the contemnors were “respectable Christian priests belonging to the Salesians of Don Bosco Order and running this heritage institution.”
In delivering its observations, the Court recorded, “Jesus Christ taught us to forgive a wrongdoer. He preached that the satisfaction one gets out of forgiveness is much more than what is reached by inflicting the pain of punishment.” It continued, “To our knowledge, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism also have similar precepts. It becomes more relevant when the wrongdoer is genuinely remorseful and pleads for forgiveness.”
The Court noted the manner in which Senior Advocate S. Chakrawarty presented the submissions on behalf of the contemnors and recorded, “We also appreciate the pleasing and submissive manner in which Mr. Chakrawarty presented the part of the affidavits of the alleged contemnors, praying for forgiveness.”
In considering the decision on whether to punish or forgive, the Court recorded, “In the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, we have the option of punishing the alleged contemnors or forgiving them. The prerogative of forgiving even an unacceptable act is with the Court.”
The Court decided to exercise its discretion to forgive the contemnors, recording, “Therefore, considering the status of the institution and of its management in society, the genuineness with which regret was expressed for the demolition and forgiveness prayed for, we dispose of this criminal contempt application without proceeding any further with it.”
The Court concluded by directing that the management strictly comply with its earlier order dated 24 February 2025. It reiterated the material portion of the said order as follows: “The building has already been demolished. The students have been relocated to another place. It is a premier school in Shillong. The building restructuring plan has been approved by the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority. According to the respondent authorities, on a combined view of the square, the statue of the Don Bosco and the façade of the school facing it, the building should be declared as heritage.”
The Court further recorded: “Considering all the above facts, we permit the school management to rebuild but the plan and architecture of the building should be more or similar to the demolished one. If the approved plan has to be revised, it may be so done and duly approved by the Meghalaya Urban Development Authority. The management may proceed with the reconstruction work but shall not create any third party rights by transfer, creating encumbrance or parting with possession of the property without the leave of the Court.”
The Division Bench disposed of both the public interest litigation and the connected application, stating, “In view of the above, this Public Interest Litigation and the connected application [MC(PIL) No. 5 of 2024] are accordingly, disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the petitioner: Mr. R. Pahsyntiew Advocate, Mr. W.G.R. Mihsill Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. A. Kumar Advocate General, Mr. K. Khan Additional Advocate General, Mrs. I. Lyngwa Government Advocate, Mr. S. Chakrawarty Senior Advocate, Mr. P.A. Dohkrut Advocate
Case Title: Raphael Warji v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:MLHC:187-DB
Case Number: PIL No. 11 of 2024 with MC(PIL) No. 5 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh
[Read/Download order]
