The Supreme Court’s issuance of a contempt notice to NCDRC members reflects a serious situation, with strong words like “mockery” and “absolute impunity” used to describe the alleged defiance of court orders.The Supreme Court has taken strong action against two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for disregarding a stay order and issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) to a real estate firm.
NEW DELHI: Today (3rd April): The Supreme Court has taken strong action against two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for disregarding a stay order and issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) to a real estate firm.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court ruling on NCDRC members’ court order violation
The Court has issued a contempt of court notice to the NCDRC members, who appeared before the Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. Despite the members’ explanation that their actions were unintentional, the Court remains dissatisfied.
The Supreme Court criticized two members of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for flouting a stay order and issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against a real estate firm. The two NCDRC members, Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, were personally present before the Supreme Court, which had earlier asked them to explain their wilful disobedience of the stay order issued on March 1.
Despite their affidavits claiming unintentional and inadvertent lapses, the Court remained unconvinced. The Bench, consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation provided by the two members. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the situation, highlighting that the NBWs were issued despite the stay order, which was a clear defiance of the Court’s authority.
Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani appeared on behalf of the NCDRC members and offered an apology, stating that their error was not deliberate. However, the Court did not find the apology satisfactory and remarked that the issuance of NBWs was a mockery of the court and an act of absolute impunity. The Court questioned why the NCDRC members did not withdraw their order once the stay order was in effect.
The AG requested the Court to consider a lenient view, suggesting that the NCDRC members could provide further explanation. However, the Court emphasized that the matter involved the life and liberty of individuals and that the members’ refusal to comply with the stay order challenged the Supreme Court’s authority.
Justice Amanullah directly addressed AG Venkataramani, stressing the importance of clarity
“Are you pressing the affidavit you filed? Yes or no. There will be deep penal consequences, we find it to be defying … You have to be careful about what you (NCDRC members) sign!”
AG Venkataramani conveyed an apology on behalf of the NCDRC members, emphasizing the lack of intentionality in their mistake
“I sincerely and unconditionally apologise… Please do not comprehend anything as being deliberate. Maybe I failed to convey.”
Despite the apology, Justice Kohli emphasized the severity of the situation:
“NBWs were issued no less. Mockery of this court. Absolute impunity.”
Justice Amanullah echoed this sentiment, questioning the failure to withdraw the order
“They should have recalled the order immediately… They acted defiantly.”
AG Venkataramani appealed for leniency
“With the greatest respect. I can ask them to give further explanation.”
The NCDRC members explained their misunderstanding, believing they couldn’t withdraw the order once passed. Justice Kohli responded, highlighting the stakes involved
“Why not? we are talking of life and liberty here. They would have been behind bars if (the NBWs were) executed! What about that?”
Justice Amanullah expressed frustration at the refusal to comply
“How do you refuse to comply state in one breath? You are throwing a challenge in the face of the Supreme Court after noting our order.”
When NCDRC member Chandra acknowledged the mistake, the Court emphasized the importance of consistency
“Sorry, that is not what our affidavits say. Please appreciate. The seniormost government officer is assisting us no less. He can only go until a point. Ordinarily, we would not have called you forward.”
READ ALSO: “Maggi Noodles Safety”|| NCDRC Dismisses Central Govt. Complaint Against Nestlé India
When NCDRC member Subhash Chandra accepted that a mistake had occurred, the Court pointed out the contradiction between his acceptance and the content of their affidavits. The Court proceeded to issue contempt of court notices to the two members, giving them an opportunity to file another affidavit explaining their conduct.
Background
The Supreme Court’s decision came after a series of consumer complaints were filed against a realty company, Ireo Grace, regarding the delayed possession of flats in Gurugram’s ‘The Corridor’ housing project. The NCDRC had previously granted compensation to the homebuyers, leading to execution proceedings against Ireo Grace. The company appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a stay order on March 1, providing interim protection to Ireo Grace and restraining the NCDRC from taking coercive action.
