“If Case Deserves Relief, It Must Be Granted”: Supreme Court On Judicial Practice Of Sending Matters Back To Authorities

The Supreme Court has said that legal remedies must remain simple, effective and efficient, while expressing dissatisfaction over the Allahabad High Court repeatedly directing the Uttar Pradesh government to “consider and reconsider” its decision on non-payment of salaries to lecturers of a private degree college.

“There is no doubt about the fact that the ‘consider jurisprudence’, so routinely adopted these days and if we may use the expression – to throw the ball out of the Court, is counterproductive and harms the system,” a Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said.

Court stressed that once a legal right is found to be justified, courts must grant relief instead of postponing the issue.

“The Constitutional or statutory remedies are not intended for academic discourse. If a case deserves relief, it must be granted then and there, unflinchingly if need be. Balancing of equities is not to be confused with avoiding or postponing the relief,” the Bench observed.

Court said the issue was not about the law itself, but about the manner in which courts function and judicial remedies are practiced. It added that good judicial practices developed over time are often more valuable than written laws because they reflect the true spirit of the rule of law.

The observations came while the Supreme Court was hearing a contempt petition arising out of proceedings before the Allahabad High Court.

The case concerns lecturers appointed in a private college in 1993. The college had been receiving financial assistance from the State government, but this stopped after a 2000 government policy discontinued aid to non-government aided colleges.

The lecturers challenged the policy and sought directions for sanction of posts and payment of salaries from the government treasury. In 2010, the high court disposed of their writ petition by directing the Director of Education to examine the matter and pass a “speaking and reasoned order”.

In 2011, the authorities rejected the claim, stating that the government had completely banned creation of teaching and non-teaching posts in non-government aided colleges.

That order was challenged again. In 2013, the high court once more directed the authorities to reconsider the lecturers’ claim and pass a fresh reasoned order.

The authorities again rejected the demand in 2013, reiterating that there was no justification for creation of posts or payment of salaries from the State funds.

This led to a third writ petition. In 2023, the high court again remitted the matter to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh, for a fresh decision in light of earlier orders.

When the lecturers filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of the 2023 order, the department once again rejected their claim through another fresh order.

“The narration of facts would sadly indicate that, as the ‘First Season’ with multiple episodes of rejection orders followed by successive ‘consider’ and ‘reconsider’ directions of the High Court reached nowhere, commencement of contempt proceedings seem to have only opened up the ‘Second Season’ of inconclusive directions for filing affidavits after affidavits,” the Bench remarked.

The Supreme Court noted that the high court repeatedly directed authorities to file fresh compliance affidavits after rejecting earlier ones. This process continued through several orders passed in 2024 and even in 2025.

On May 9, 2025, the authorities again dismissed the lecturers’ claim, calling it baseless and contrary to government policy.

“Facts that we have recounted till now reveal a sad reflection, not of our laws, but the way we practice our laws and work our judicial remedies,” the bench said, adding that such “episodic disposal” could even occur in the Supreme Court and therefore required course correction.

Court observed that there had never been a clear judicial finding on whether the lecturers actually had a legal right, whether that right had been violated, and what exactly the government was required to do.

“Had there been such clarity, the government would not have a choice. In fact, it should have no choice. It should either comply, appeal or face contempt,” the Bench said.

Court added that judicial directions must be clear and categorical, including the manner in which they are to be complied with.

The Bench also expressed concern over what it described as a growing tendency to invoke contempt jurisdiction for quick relief even when appealable orders already exist.

The Supreme Court noted that the government’s detailed order dated May 9, 2025 remained unchallenged and that the high court had not referred to it in its proceedings.

In its final directions, Court allowed the lecturers to challenge the May 9, 2025 order before the high court.

Considering that the litigation has continued for over 16 years, the Supreme Court directed the high court to hear the writ petition along with the pending contempt proceedings.

“The high court will first take up the writ petition and pass final orders taking into account its earlier orders passed on 7.10.2010, 06.03.2013 and 14.07.2013. The high court shall not remand the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective of the government is clearly evident,” the Bench said.

Court clarified that if the high court finds merit in the lecturers’ case, it must issue clear directions for compliance. If it does not find merit, it should dismiss the petition with clear and simple reasons.

The Bench also requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to place the matter before an appropriate bench for final disposal.

Also read| Supreme Court Grants Bail After 9 Years In Jail, Slams Allahabad HC For Ignoring Right To Speedy Trial

Also read| SC Slams Allahabad HC Judge for Misusing Criminal Law to Settle Civil Disputes

Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Agrawal Vs Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

Date of Judgment: February 10, 2026