Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-013016-013016 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 48034/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Writ jurisdiction / Contempt / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the release of a reserved writ petition operates as discharge of an interim order protecting service tenure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that once an interim order is granted and continued by the court, it remains in full force until it is expressly vacated or recalled. The mere release or placement of a reserved writ petition before the Chief Justice does not amount to vacatur. The respondent institution could not lawfully terminate the appellant’s service while the interim protection was in operation, absent any order recalling it. On this short ground, the contempt application must be re-considered afresh by the High Court alongside all connected proceedings. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The Court reasoned that interim orders derive force from the issuing court’s continuing jurisdiction and cannot be deemed discharged by procedural events like release of the petition; they persist until expressly set aside. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, a professor and nodal officer for CPMS at KGMU, faced audit objections for 2011–12, triggering multiple disciplinary enquiries and five writ petitions. An interim order of 20 Dec 2018 protected his service, but he was terminated on 10 Jun 2020. His contempt petition for breach of interim orders was dismissed by the High Court and is now remitted for fresh hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Overrules | The impugned order of the Allahabad High Court (23 Sep 2024) |
| Follows | The longstanding principle that interim relief continues until vacated |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarification that the release of a reserved writ petition does not operate as vacatur of an interim order.
- Interim orders remain binding until they are expressly recalled or set aside by the same court.
- Termination or other actions in breach of an unvacated interim order may be quashed.
- Contempt petitions alleging breach of interim protection can be remitted for fresh consideration.
- Lawyers can cite this ruling to resist attempts to evade interim judicial protection through procedural maneuvers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that interim orders draw their authority from the issuing court’s continuing jurisdiction and cannot be deemed withdrawn by mere release of the petition.
- It noted that the High Court erred in treating the release of W.P. No. 29638/2018 as termination of the interim order dated 20 Dec 2018.
- Since the appellant’s termination occurred while the interim protection was still in force, the High Court should have treated that act as contempt.
- The Supreme Court therefore quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the contempt application for fresh hearing, directing the High Court to consider all connected matters together for effective adjudication.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The interim order of 20 Dec 2018 remained in operation until expressly vacated.
- Mere release or placement of the reserved writ petition before the Chief Justice did not discharge the interim protection.
- Termination of service without leave of the court violated the ongoing interim order.
Respondent (KGMU and Others):
- Multiple writ petitions with similar issues were pending; High Court reasoned pendency justified dismissal of contempt petition.
- Release of the matter was treated as conclusion of proceedings, permitting the institution to act on its findings.
- Learned Single Judge found no continuing interim protection once the petition was released.
Factual Background
The appellant, a professor at King George’s Medical College (KGMU), was appointed nodal officer for implementing hospital software (CPMS). An audit in August 2017 flagged alleged irregularities during his tenure, leading to enquiries and five separate writ petitions. He secured interim protection on 20 Dec 2018 against disciplinary action. Despite that, he was terminated on 10 Jun 2020. His subsequent contempt petition for breach of the interim orders was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, prompting this appeal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the settled rule on the continuance of interim relief until it is expressly vacated.