The Allahabad High Court recently issued show-cause notices for civil contempt to the Superintendent of Police (Mau), the Station House Officer (Maduban), and the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mau, for detaining a woman even though the Court had stayed her arrest. The underlying case concerned a married couple who had solemnised their marriage according to Hindu rites. The woman’s mother had filed a complaint against them under certain sections of the law, and an FIR was lodged thereafter. In response, the couple filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court, seeking protection from arrest and custodial detention. On July 18, 2025, the High Court granted interim relief and explicitly stayed the arrest of both the husband and the wife until the next listing.
Despite this clear judicial order, the police, on July 29, reportedly took the woman into custody. On the same day, the CWC presented her before it and directed that she be interned at the One-Stop Centre, Mau. The High Court took strong exception to this action, noting that it violated the Court’s order and constituted a contempt. The bench observed that any executive act — whether by police or a statutory body such as the Child Welfare Committee — that contravenes a judicial order is legally null, and moreover, amounts to contempt of Court.
The Court summoned the SP, the SHO and the CWC Chairperson to explain by what authority they deprived the woman of her liberty, despite the stay. It directed them to file personal affidavits by December 17, 2025, explaining their conduct and justifying why contempt proceedings should not follow. The High Court also ordered that the woman — currently lodged at a shelter in a different district — be produced before Court on the next date of listing.
In doing so, the Court underscored that judicial orders are binding on all state actors, including police and welfare-statutory bodies, and must be scrupulously respected. The ruling reaffirms that even in sensitive matters — including those involving alleged offences and welfare-based interventions — the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be breached once a Court has granted protection.
This case highlights the serious consequences for executive authorities when they ignore or override judicial directions, demonstrating the High Court’s willingness to hold responsible individuals accountable via contempt jurisdiction to safeguard the rule of law and fundamental rights.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.