In a tough reminder to persons who flout judicial orders, the Supreme Court recently held that such persons ought to be taught a lesson that by merely tendering an unconditional apology they cannot get away from facing the consequences.
A private medical college in Madhya Pradesh was slapped with a hefty fine of Rs 50 lakh by the apex court for admitting students under the management quota without honouring a decision of the court that required it to accommodate students from the State list under a 50:50 seat-sharing arrangement.
Despite the college offering an unqualified and unconditional apology, a bench of Justices BS Chauhan, KS Radhakrishnan and SA Bobde said, "To maintain the sanctity of the orders of this court and to give a message that the parties cannot get away by merely tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology after enjoying the fruits of their illegality, we are inclined to impose a fine, which we quantify at Rs 50 lakh."
This could be a stern reminder to Sahara Chairman Subrata Roy Sahara ahead of the hearing on his contempt petition listed for March 4 before a bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and JS Khehar.
Incidentally, Justice Radhakrishnan wrote the judgement in question.
The conduct of the Peoples College of Medical Science drew the ire of the court which found the action to be violative of its successive orders passed in 2009 and 2011. Under the arrangement, the court fixed for all private medical colleges, of the 150 management seats, 50 per cent had to be filled from the State list. Although the apology came late in the day, the college ignored successive reminders from the State Government, Medical Council of India and State Directorate of Medical Education, who kept reminding it of the flagrant violation of court order.
The bench said, "By tendering unconditional and unqualified apology, the contemnors are trying to wriggle out of the possible action for Contempt of Court after violating the orders causing considerable inconvenience to the students and after enjoying the fruits for the illegality committed by them." Such disobedience, it added, reflected scant respect to the highest court of the land.