Contempt Of Court Act | Burden To Prove 'Willful Disobedience' Lies Upon Complainant; Merely Alleging Non-Compliance Is Insufficient: Karnataka High Court

"It is trite but relevant to observe that the Police must ensure that there is due obedience with the civil Court’s order, and if there is any difficulty in enforcing such obedience, they must follow the procedure that is contemplated under the Circular No.CRM-3/105/2018" Karnataka High Court, in a ruling dated 9th October 2026, held that a petition for civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence demonstrating "willful" disobedience by the alleged contemnor.

A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice N.V. Bhavani observed that where the state authorities have demonstrated due diligence and have initiated the prescribed procedural mechanisms to implement a court order, the threshold for establishing contempt is not met.

The petitioner had moved the Court seeking to hold the Police Inspector of Whitefield Police Station in contempt for allegedly failing to enforce a trial court’s injunction order, which had been upheld by a Coordinate Bench. The complainant argued that the police failed to prevent trespassers from interfering with his property, thereby disregarding the mandate of the writ court which directed police to ensure obedience to civil court orders.

Court Examines Nature of Alleged Disobedience

The primary question before the court was whether the actions of the accused officer constituted a "willful disobedience" of the writ court's order dated 25.09.2025, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Additionally, the court was tasked with determining whether the police had adhered to the protocol mandated by the Director General of Police’s Circular dated 14.11.2018 regarding the enforcement of civil court injunctions.

Police Demonstrate Compliance With Procedural Mandates

Upon reviewing the affidavit and evidence filed by the accused, the Court noted that the officer had conducted an on-site inspection and verified the possession status of the subject property. Furthermore, the officer had proactively sought legal opinions from the Commissioner of Police and the Department of Prosecution in strict accordance with the Circular dated 14.11.2018. This circular specifically stipulates that when police encounter difficulties in enforcing civil court orders, they are required to seek the opinion of the Director of Prosecution before placing the matter back before the civil court.

"The above Affidavit clearly reveals that the accused has exercised his due diligence to implement the order of writ court."

Absence of Contumacious Conduct

The bench emphasized that the scope of a contempt proceeding is limited to assessing whether there is a contumacious intent behind the failure to comply with a judicial direction. Because the complainant could not rebut the evidence of the steps taken by the police to follow the established legal procedure, the court found the allegations of "willful" disobedience to be without merit.

Court Rejects Vague Allegations of Contempt

The court underscored that the prayer for contempt cannot be predicated upon vague assertions when the record demonstrates active engagement with the judicial process. Since the accused had successfully demonstrated that he initiated the necessary requisitions through the Home Department to obtain the required legal opinion, the court held that the requirement of the writ court's order had been substantially addressed.

Finding that the complainant failed to establish any element of willful defiance or contumacious conduct, the Division Bench declined to initiate contempt proceedings. The petition was consequently consigned to the record, reaffirming that the power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary jurisdiction that must be exercised only when a clear, willful intent to disobey is proven beyond doubt.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026