Anshul Mishra. File
| Photo Credit: K. Ananthan

The Madras High Court has found Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Anshul Mishra guilty of contempt of court and directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The court, however, suspended the sentence until he could prefer an appeal before a Division Bench of the court.

Justice P. Velmurugan directed the Madras High Court Registry to take steps for securing the custody of the former Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) Member Secretary and make him undergo the sentence if he does not prefer the appeal within the limitation period of 30 days.

The judge also directed Mr. Mishra to pay a compensation of ₹25,000 to aged siblings R. Lalithambal and K.S. Viswananthan, who had been struggling for years to retrieve their valuable immovable property, which was acquired for a public purpose but reportedly not used for the same.

Making it clear that the compensation must be paid from the personal funds of the IAS officer and not from public funds, the judge ordered that the State government deduct the amount from his monthly salary. In default, the officer was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for another 10 days.

Displeased with the government authorities having taken two years to comply with a court order, which insisted that they take a decision within two months, Justice Velmurugan wrote: “This court notes with concern that such conduct by public authorities is not an isolated incident.”

He went on to state: “In numerous cases, it is seen that poor and aggrieved litigants, after approaching public authorities for redressal of genuine grievances, are forced to approach the constitutional courts for directions. Even after judicial intervention, the concerned authorities, for reasons best known to them, either delay or altogether ignore compliance, compelling the litigants to resort to contempt proceedings for enforcement of their rights.”

The judge said, such repeated and consistent defiance by public officials was not only wrong but also challenges the fundamental principles of justice and the need to uphold the rule of law.

“The confidence of the citizens in the justice delivery system rests upon the assurance that the orders of the courts will be implemented promptly and effectively. Public service is not a privilege but a trust reposed in the officials by the people. Public servants are answerable not only to their immediate administrative superiors but ultimately to the law and the Constitution,” he observed.

Once an order gets passed by a court of law, it would be binding upon the executive and its compliance was not optional. “Any deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes contempt of court. This court, therefore, is constrained to record that the respondent/contemnor has wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the orders passed by this court. The excuses offered are neither bona fide nor satisfactory,” the judge added.

The legal battle

According to the siblings, who had filed the present contempt plea, 17 cents of their land abutting Nesapakkam Road in Chennai was acquired in 1983 for constructing Tamil Nadu Housing Board tenements. However, when the land was not utilised for long, the petitioners initiated a legal battle seeking reconveyance of the property.

Pursuant to a writ petition filed in 2003, followed by contempt proceedings, about 10.5 cents of the land was reconveyed to them but the rest of 6.5 cents was retained for the purpose of widening the Nesapakkam Road. Again, the siblings kickstarted a second round of litigation to get back the remaining property.

Disposing of their second writ petition on November 22, 2023, Justice Velmurugan had directed the CMDA Member Secretary to consider the couple’s plea and pass appropriate orders within two months. However, since the order was not complied with, the siblings filed the present contempt plea in August 2024.

The petitioners’ counsel told the court the 2023 order was not complied with until Mr. Mishra was transferred from CMDA to the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board in February 2025. His successor in CMDA rejected the petitioners’ plea, for reconveyance, on February 28, 2025.