The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Surinder Kaul, Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, for allegedly filing a false affidavit.
NEW DELHI: Today, 5th March, The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Punjab government on Wednesday for saying it was not bound by the statements made by its own lawyers in court.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reprimanded Punjab’s Chief Secretary, KAP Sinha, for not giving clear answers to the Court’s questions.
Today’s Hearing
The case involved a demand for the extension of benefits under the Punjab Privately Managed Aided Colleges Pension Scheme, 1996. The Punjab government had repealed this scheme retrospectively. However, it had previously given an undertaking before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the scheme’s benefits would be provided to the petitioners.
In a previous order, the Supreme Court had directed Chief Secretary KAP Sinha to appear in court. When the case was heard on Wednesday, the Bench expressed its frustration, stating,
“Mr. Sinha, is it not correct that repeatedly you gave undertaking to the court and see the submissions made? That the undertaking is given by my executive, State is not bound by it. What kind of submission is this? Now we will issue contempt notice…”
The Court was displeased with the Punjab government’s failure to honor its commitments and said,
“Now you tell us, we will give you choice against whom contempt notice should be issued. Repeatedly undertakings are given, false statements are being made in the last affidavit. You tell us should we issue it to you or you name an officer, we will issue it to him…”
Sinha requested time to file an affidavit, but the Court insisted that its order was already clear.
“You should have done that [implementation] by today. This is the height of it. Repeatedly statements are made to the Court, assurance is given. This is the height of it. Shamelessly we are told that these statements made by the Advocate General are by the executive and are not by the State? This is the shameless act on the part of the government. Most shameless act.”
The Court also warned that in future cases, it would not accept oral statements from the Punjab government’s lawyers without a written affidavit.
“Hereafter as far as this State is concerned, we will not record statement of any counsel. Every time a statement is made across the bar, we will ask the lawyer to file affidavit of the officer.”
At this stage, Punjab Advocate General (AG) Gurminder Singh attempted to intervene, but the Court addressed Sinha directly, questioning whether he was justifying the government’s stance of disowning statements made in court.
“We will issue contempt. Then first we will deal with contempt, let officers go to jail and thereafter we’ll hear you. What is this going on? Mr. Sinha are you justifying this? That the statements made by the AG are by the executive and not by the State?”
Sinha responded that he agreed with the Court’s observations. However, when asked whether the government would extend the scheme’s benefits to the petitioners, he hesitated.
“We are asking you a question you must answer it straight. Either yes or no. You want to give benefit or you don’t want to. Answer yes or no!”
Sinha replied that he could not go against the legislature’s decision. The Court, however, was not satisfied and pressed for a clear answer.
“Mr. Sinha, tell us are you giving them the benefit or not. One of the two answers we want. If you say no, we will record it and then issue contempt notice. So you are not able to give answer?”
A long exchange followed, with the Court repeatedly asking for a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer and Sinha avoiding a direct response. Even when the Punjab AG tried to intervene, the Court refused to engage with him.
“We have asked a question to KAP Sinha, not you.”
Finally, when the Court began recording Sinha’s answer, he stated that he would follow the Court’s order. Justice Oka made it clear that the Court was not compelling him but demanding a straightforward answer.
“You have to give answer yes or if it is no, then we will consider what action will be taken.”
During the hearing, the Court also noted that Sinha made certain gestures, which led to the Punjab AG apologizing. The AG then requested a week’s time to resolve the issue, but the Court decided to issue orders immediately.
Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notices
The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Surinder Kaul, Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, for allegedly filing a false affidavit.
“First we issue notice to Surinder Kaul, Dy. Director, Department of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab as to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under the provisions of law for making a false affidavit before this Court.”
The Court also issued a show cause notice to Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, expressing shock at the Punjab government’s submission that it was not bound by its own lawyer’s statements.
“Inspite of repeated undertakings given to the High Court, compliance has not been made by the State. Therefore we issue show cause notice to Shri KAP Sinha calling upon him to show cause why action against the Contempt of Courts Act (both civil and criminal)… should not be initiated against him. If he’s of the view that some other officer is responsible, he is free to file an affidavit with the names of the other officers who are responsible for the breach so that we can initiate action.”
At this point, Punjab AG Gurminder Singh tried to reassure the Court and acknowledged that the government’s stance was inappropriate.
The Court questioned him,
“You are representing such a powerful State which is denying the correctness of the statements made by AAG. You are so powerful!”
Singh responded by calling the disowning of the government counsel’s statements “unfortunate.”
He admitted that shifting blame was not helping and promised to take corrective action.
“Take it from me… I will do something positive.”
With this assurance, the Court adjourned the matter.
Background of the Case
On July 26, 2001, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took note of a statement made on behalf of the Punjab government that the pension scheme would be implemented within three months. However, no action was taken.
On May 2, 2002, the Additional Advocate General, on instructions from senior officers, gave a commitment before the High Court that the scheme would be published and implemented by June 15, 2002. Based on this promise, the High Court refrained from initiating contempt proceedings at the time.
However, instead of implementing the scheme, the Punjab government introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002. Over the years, Punjab sought multiple adjournments, citing plans to repeal these rules. Between 2011 and 2012, the government continued giving assurances but did not follow through.
