Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

The Supreme Court held that once an interim court order is in operation, it remains binding unless specifically vacated. Merely releasing a reserved matter does not invalidate or nullify an existing interim order. Violating such an order without obtaining prior leave from the court constitutes a prima facie case for contempt proceedings.

Facts Of The Case:

The appellant, a professor at KGMU, was appointed as the Nodal Officer for implementing a software system in 2010. In 2017, audit objections arose regarding expenditures during his tenure, leading to a disciplinary inquiry. The professor challenged the preliminary inquiry and a subsequent notice via his first writ petition in 2018. While this petition was reserved for judgment, the disciplinary committee sent him a questionnaire, which he challenged through a second writ petition. In this second petition, the High Court, via an interim order dated 20 December 2018, permitted the disciplinary proceedings to continue but expressly barred passing any final order until judgment in the first petition.Despite this bar, the disciplinary process continued. The first writ petition was later released from being reserved without a judgment being delivered. Subsequently, the professor was suspended and, ultimately, terminated from service in June 2020. He then filed a contempt application before the High Court, alleging that his suspension and termination violated the binding interim order of 20 December 2018. The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, prompting the professor’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Procedural History:

The procedural history of this case is marked by multiple, parallel legal challenges. The appellant initiated his first writ petition in 2018, which was reserved for judgment. Before its disposal, he filed subsequent writ petitions challenging each step of the disciplinary process, including the issuance of a questionnaire, a chargesheet, his suspension, and finally his termination. During this period, a crucial interim order dated 20 December 2018, issued in the second writ petition, expressly prohibited passing any final disciplinary order. Despite this, the disciplinary authority proceeded to terminate the appellant’s services in 2020. The appellant then filed a contempt application alleging violation of the interim order, which the High Court dismissed in September 2024. This dismissal led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the contempt petition for fresh consideration.

READ ALSO:Supreme Court Ruling: Drug Disposal Committee Cannot Overtake Court’s Power to Release Seized Vehicles

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court made a clear and concise observation on the legal sanctity of interim orders. The Court held that the interim order dated 20 December 2018, which explicitly barred passing any final disciplinary order, remained legally operative and binding on the parties. It observed that the mere act of the High Court “releasing” the connected first writ petition from being reserved for judgment on 6 February 2019 did not, in itself, constitute a valid ground for the respondents to violate the specific prohibition contained in the extant interim order. The Court emphasized that unless the respondents had obtained formal leave from the Court to proceed, the interim restraint continued to be in full force. Therefore, proceeding with the termination was a prima facie violation of the court’s directive.

Final Decision & Judgement:

Case Title: Prof. Ashish Wakhlu vs. Prof. Soniya Nityanand and Other
Appeal Number: (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27468 of 2024)
Date of Judgement: October 27, 2025Judges/Justices Name:Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

 Download The Judgement Here