Sri Vijaya Puram, May 5: The Calcutta High Court has held that the government cannot refuse to implement final judicial decisions on the grounds of policy, reinforcing that compliance with court orders is a constitutional obligation once they attain finality.
The ruling, delivered in the case of Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh versus Lieutenant Governor and others, centres on the regularisation and service benefits of Daily Rated Mazdoors in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The dispute stems from a 1988 office memorandum governing pay and regularisation of casual labourers and has evolved into a prolonged legal battle over labour rights.
The Union of India had opposed full implementation of a court-backed regularisation framework, citing policy considerations and legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Umadevi case. It also argued that the framework had been adopted under the threat of contempt proceedings and should not be treated as binding.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court stated that judicial authority is derived from the Constitution and cannot be disregarded on claims of compliance under pressure. It observed that such reasoning would weaken the rule of law by suggesting that court orders are binding only when backed by coercive measures.
The bench further held that the State cannot avoid enforcing fundamental and human rights by invoking policy constraints. It emphasised that once a judicial decision reaches finality, the government is duty-bound to implement it in its entirety.
On the question of delay, the court rejected the Centre’s argument that the claims were time-barred. It noted that the workers had consistently pursued relief through appropriate legal forums. The matter had earlier been settled before a National Lok Adalat, where authorities agreed to grant bonus to eligible workers. When the settlement was not honoured, the petitioners approached the High Court, which directed compliance. Continued non-compliance led to contempt proceedings, indicating sustained efforts by the workers to enforce their rights.
The court also pointed to inconsistencies in the administration’s approach, observing that authorities had initially accepted judicial directions but later attempted to distance themselves from their implications. Such a position, the bench held, cannot be sustained.
Reiterating that the State is not a privileged litigant, the court said government authorities are bound by judicial decisions in the same manner as any other party. Compliance with court orders, it added, is not discretionary but mandatory.
In a related development reflecting concerns over administrative uniformity, Member of Parliament Bishnu Pada Ray has recently called for a review of age criteria in an ongoing recruitment process in the islands. He pointed to inconsistencies in the prescribed age limits for certain Group C posts, where categories such as constables and firemen carry lower upper age caps compared to other posts. He urged authorities to align the criteria with the administration’s 2025 guidelines to ensure fairness and expand eligibility for candidates.
The developments collectively underscore the need for consistency in governance, with the court reiterating that policy cannot override constitutional obligations, particularly when enforcement of rights is involved.
