The Supreme Court has expressed surprise at the Calcutta High Court’s decision to direct parties to mediation in a contempt proceeding without mutual consent. The apex court emphasized that mediation is only permissible when both parties agree to it.
A bench comprised Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih. They were hearing a petition challenging the High Court’s approach. The State not held accountable for contempt over non-compliance with a judicial order. The High Court referred the matter to mediation, despite objections from the appellant.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court observed that since the High Court had already determined on multiple occasions that the State was bound to comply with a writ of mandamus issued on February 10, 2020, it could not have referred the matter for mediation.
The court stated, “Mediation has to be by the consent of both parties. It cannot be thrust upon either party. The High Court, despite resistance from the appellant’s counsel, referred the matter to mediation merely on the Advocate General’s submission that the State was willing to offer alternative land. This approach is legally untenable.”
Background of the Dispute
The dispute originated from a promise made by HIDCO in a letter dated April 6, 2011. It was to convey a piece of land on a freehold basis to the appellants. However, on August 24, 2012, HIDCO informed the appellants that the initial allotment was made when the Model Code of Conduct was in place. This was during the West Bengal Assembly elections of 2011. As a result, the decision was reviewed. The allotment was changed to a 99-year leasehold basis instead of freehold.
In 2019, a division bench of the High Court ruled in favor of the appellants. It declared the State’s change in allotment as arbitrary. When the State failed to comply with the ruling, the appellants filed a contempt petition. Thus, leading to the present proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Directive
The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court’s decision to push for mediation in a contempt case. They directed the State to comply with the High Court’s judgment. It further ordered that if compliance was not met, the Chief Secretary must appear before the Supreme Court on March 3.
“The majesty of law requires that due obedience be given to the command of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it has not been interfered with by this Court,” the Supreme Court stated in its ruling.
