The Supreme Court has addressed a case involving contempt proceedings initiated by the Bombay High Court against a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) engineer, Maheshkumar Sampat Jare, for delays in the construction of a toilet block. The Supreme Court bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh has directed the engineer to appear before the High Court and explain the reasons for the delay.

The Bombay High Court's initial order on October 4, 2024, instructed the BMC to construct toilets within three months in a slum cluster in Kalina, Santacruz East, citing Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, including dignified living, and referencing the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. However, on February 2, 2025, the High Court expressed displeasure that the toilet blocks remained incomplete and threatened contempt action. The BMC executive engineer, Jare, explained that the survey took time, and the construction of a 32-unit toilet block (15 for women, 16 for men, and one for handicapped persons) was estimated to take nine months. On May 6, 2025, the High Court initiated contempt proceedings against Jare because the toilet blocks were still not completed despite the February order. A week later, the toilet complex was inaugurated.

Faced with potential contempt charges, Jare appealed to the Supreme Court. His advocate, Gaurav Agrawal, argued that Jare had a clean 35-year service record and was nearing retirement, making the contempt proceedings particularly harsh. Agrawal emphasized that Jare had done everything possible to expedite the project.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the general principle that it should not interfere with contempt notices issued by High Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the toilet block had since been inaugurated and instructed Jare to appear before the High Court to explain the circumstances of the delay. The Supreme Court also recognized Jare's apprehension about his fate, given the strong remarks made by the High Court.

This case highlights the importance of timely execution of public works projects, especially those concerning basic sanitation and hygiene. The High Court's invocation of Article 21 and the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan underscores the link between sanitation and the right to a dignified life. The Supreme Court's reluctance to interfere in the High Court's contempt proceedings reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring compliance with its orders.

Contempt of court is a special jurisdiction that should be exercised sparingly and with caution, particularly when an action negatively impacts the administration of justice, impedes its course, or undermines public confidence in judicial institutions. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts.

The Supreme Court has the power to punish for contempt of itself under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution. It also has wide appellate jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals in India and may grant special leave to appeal any judgment or order. Parliament can confer further powers on the Supreme Court to hear appeals from High Court judgments.