The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned public officials against the feeling that they were "above law" and castigated an officer for allegedly disobeying a high court order.
The apex court referred to the high court's specific warning and asked, "Does he feel that he is above the high court?"
The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned public officials against the feeling that they were "above law" and castigated an officer for allegedly disobeying a high court order.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea filed by the officer, who is now a deputy collector, against a division bench order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which rejected his contempt appeals.
The division bench refused to interfere with a single judge's order which sentenced the officer to imprisonment for two months for "deliberate and utter disobedience" of its order.
The single judge's order came on the pleas alleging that the officer, who was then a tehsildar, forcibly removed hutments in Guntur district in January 2014 despite a December 11, 2013 direction restraining him from doing it.
When the matter came up for hearing in the apex court on Monday, the petitioner's counsel said the officer was present in the court.
"Ask him," Justice Gavai asked, "where does he wants to go. There must be some prison at Amaravati or Vijaywada or Tihar (jail in Delhi). We will give him a choice." The judge added, "The officers should not feel that they are above the law. He (officer) was warned by the court once and in spite of that, he repeats it." After the bench warned to send the officer into custody right away, his counsel sought it to "show mercy". "Mercy on what grounds?" the bench retorted.
The apex court referred to the high court's specific warning and asked, "Does he feel that he is above the high court?" The bench then questioned the officer about the reasons for his defiance of the direction.
"And how many families have you dishoused? You took 80 odd policemen along with you and disobeyed the directions of the high court," it said.
His lawyer said while his client's actions were unpardonable, the court could consider imposing heavy costs on him.
"He would lose his job if he is in custody for 48 hours," the bench said.
When his counsel narrated the sequence of events, the bench reiterated if the officer was not required to obey the high court's directions.
The lawyer agreed that the officer should not have acted like how he did and adhered to the high court's directive.
When the lawyer said the officer had two minor children, Justice Gavai said, "He should have thought about them when he dishoused so many slum dwellers. Those persons also had children." The bench said in ordinary circumstances, it would not have entertained the plea given the petitioner's audacity to disobey the direction.
"However, taking a lenient view, we are inclined to issue notice. The notice is made returnable on May 5," the bench said and stayed the high court's order till then.
The respondents, the bench said, needed not engage a lawyer and they would be provided legal aid through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
"He (officer) must enjoy the state hospitality for some time," the bench said, warning him of a potential demotion.
"Let him be tehsildar again, or a naib tehsildar or a patwari," it added. PTI ABA ABA AMK AMK