Justice Demands Compliance
Bruhaspati Samal -
In a democratic nation governed by the rule of law, the authority of the judiciary stands as the ultimate safeguard against executive arbitrariness. However, recent developments have increasingly shown a dangerous trend of government departments treating judicial pronouncements not as binding commands, but as mere suggestions. One such glaring example is the case involving the All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' (AIPEU Group C), where the Department of Posts has repeatedly disregarded both interim and final directions of the constitutional courts.
The controversy began when the Department of Posts derecognized AIPEU Group C through an order issued on April 26, 2023. This derecognition was stayed by the Jharkhand High Court on April 12, 2024, which explicitly ordered that the association’s recognition status be maintained. Later, when the Union of India moved the Supreme Court through a batch of transfer petitions, the apex court not only refrained from interfering with the High Court's interim orders but also categorically ruled that all interim protections granted by High Courts should continue until final resolution. This direction, delivered on September 24, 2024, made it abundantly clear that the stay order protecting AIPEU Group C would remain operational. Yet, in practice, the Department refused to restore the Union’s participatory rights or reinstate its recognition.
What followed was more concerning. On February 18, 2025, the Jharkhand High Court delivered its final judgment. It held that the derecognition could not extend beyond the five-year recognition term, which had lapsed in July 2024, and that an office memorandum issued on July 30, 2024, had extended the recognition for another year or until the verification process was complete. The Court also emphasized that any irregularity by individual members of the association could be dealt with under the relevant service conduct rules, but such individual actions could not justify permanent derecognition of an entire organization. The judgment clearly stated that the Union, by virtue of the continued interim protection and the office memorandum, ought to have benefited from the extension of recognition.
Despite this comprehensive and unambiguous judgment, and despite the fact that the three-month window granted by the Supreme Court for appeal has expired without any stay, the Department of Posts has still not complied. There has been no restoration of recognition, no initiation of verification, and no response to multiple representations. The Union remains sidelined, and the High Court’s judgment, which is now final and binding, is effectively being ignored.
This is not an isolated incident. The problem of executive apathy or defiance in the face of judicial orders has surfaced repeatedly across sectors. In the landmark forest protection litigation initiated by T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, despite numerous directives from the Supreme Court, implementation by state authorities lagged for years, leading to irreversible ecological damage. In the famous Shah Bano case, although the Supreme Court had upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judgment was effectively overturned by legislative intervention under political pressure. More recently, there have been several instances where High Court orders directing timely payment of salaries, pensions, or allowances to public sector employees have gone unheeded until contempt proceedings are initiated.
The Constitution of India is clear on this matter. Article 141 mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, and by extension, all authorities. Article 144 explicitly directs that all civil and judicial authorities in the country shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. High Court orders under Article 226 are binding on all authorities within their jurisdiction, and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prescribes penal consequences for willful disobedience of judicial orders.
Disregarding court orders is not merely a procedural lapse; it is a constitutional offence. It undermines the very principle of judicial review, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. When departments fail to implement final judgments, it not only defeats the litigant’s right but also weakens public faith in the justice delivery system. It sends a dangerous message—that even a verdict in one’s favour may not bring resolution.
The case of AIPEU Group C should serve as a wake-up call. Despite favourable orders from both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the Department of Posts continues to act as though those orders do not exist. This calls into question the enforceability of judicial decisions in the face of administrative defiance. If the executive can choose which orders to obey, the very idea of rule of law stands compromised.
It is imperative that all branches of the State—executive, legislature, and judiciary—respect their constitutional boundaries. If a government department finds a court’s decision unacceptable, the appropriate course is to seek a review, an appeal, or a clarificatory order. Silence, inaction, or wilful defiance is neither lawful nor democratic. Courts, too, must respond assertively in such cases to preserve their authority. The power to punish for contempt is not an egoistic weapon but a constitutional mechanism to enforce compliance and preserve judicial integrity. The AIPEU Group C case is not merely a dispute about recognition. It is a litmus test for constitutional governance. It poses a fundamental question—can a government department ignore the judiciary and yet claim to act under the Constitution?
In a democracy, the answer must always be no. Judicial decisions are not recommendations; they are commands of law. If courts are to remain meaningful, if justice is to remain real, and if citizens are to retain faith in the legal system, then obedience to judicial orders must be non-negotiable. Let this be a reminder to all stakeholders-ministers, bureaucrats, public servants, and citizens alike—that the Constitution is supreme, and in its enforcement, no authority is above the law.
******
(The writer is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist. Mobile: 9437022669)
Bruhaspati Samal General Secretary Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers
Odisha State CoC, Bhubaneswar
Post a Comment