Contempt Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked Without Proof Of Willful Disobedience; Mere Knowledge Of Stay Order Not Enough If Not Properly Communicated: Orissa High Court

"This Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioners have been able to fortify their submission that there has been any violation, much less willful violation of the orders passed by this Court warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971," Orissa High Court, in an order dated June 12, 2026, held that the exercise of contempt jurisdiction requires clear evidence of a "willful violation" of court orders.

A bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed that when petitioners fail to provide official documentation of a stay order to authorities during an enforcement action, and such claims of communication remain unverified, the court cannot presume contemptuous intent on the part of state officials.

The petitioners had approached the High Court in a contempt proceeding (CONTR No.4 of 2025) alleging that state authorities, including the Collector and SDM of Jajpur, violated a stay order passed on December 23, 2024, in CRLREV No. 736 of 2024. The High Court had originally directed that "no coercive action" be taken regarding an order passed by the SDM, Jajpur under Section 152 of the BNSS, which concerned the demolition of a boundary wall. Despite this, the wall was demolished by the authorities.

The primary question before the court was whether the demolition of the boundary wall by the state authorities constituted a "willful violation" of the High Court's interim protection. The court also examined whether the service of a "notarized affidavit" via WhatsApp to the authorities on the spot constituted sufficient notice of a High Court stay order to attract contempt proceedings.

Requirement Of Willful Disobedience For Contempt

The Court emphasized that the mere fact that an action was taken contrary to a stay order does not automatically translate to contempt unless the element of "willfulness" is established. The bench noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the authorities were formally and timely served with the stay order prior to the demolition process.

Court Stresses On Formal Communication Of Stay Orders

The Court highlighted that the authorities filed counter-affidavits stating they were never informed of the High Court's stay order from any source before the eviction work commenced. One official specifically deposed that had the information been brought to his notice, there would have been no occasion to even start the process of eviction.

Inadequacy Of WhatsApp Communication Of Notarized Affidavits

The Court took note of the State's submission that the petitioner only claimed to have sent a Xerox copy of a "Notary affidavit" through WhatsApp on the spot. When asked to produce the original or a certified copy of the High Court's order, the petitioner failed to do so despite the authorities waiting for four hours.

"The petitioner was not able to produce any order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa Cuttack and every time he stated that, after 10 minutes he will provide the same," the Court noted while citing the counter-affidavit.

Failure To Challenge Counter-Assertions By Authorities

The Court observed that the assertions made by the state officials in their affidavits, which controverted the allegations of violation, went unchallenged by the petitioners. These affidavits detailed how the authorities waited at the spot for the petitioner to produce a valid court order, which never materialized.

"The assertions in the affidavit... controverting the allegations of violation inter alia relating to the 'Notarized affidavit', which is the substratum of the CONTR, have gone unchallenged," the bench observed.

Affirmation Of Original Order By Lower Court

The Court also noted that the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandikhole, had subsequently dismissed the petitioners' revision, affirming the SDM's finding that the boundary wall was an illegal construction over agricultural land and created a public nuisance. This affirmation further weakened the petitioners' stand regarding the legitimacy of their construction.

Absence Of Merit In Contempt Petition

Concluding the matter, Justice V. Narasingh held that on a total conspectus of the materials on record, the petitioners failed to prove any willful disobedience. The bench reiterated that the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is a serious one and cannot be exercised on the basis of vague or unverified communication of court orders.

The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, finding no merit in the allegations against the state officials. The ruling underscores the necessity for litigants to ensure proper service of court orders through official channels to hold authorities accountable for any subsequent violations.

Date of Decision: 12 June 2026