In a petition filed before the Bombay High Court alleging contempt of an order dated 21-01-2026 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in a writ petition along with a prayer to hold respondents 1 to 10 singly, jointly, and severally liable for contempt of courts and for punishment as per Section 12 and/or 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna disposed of the petition finding no case for contempt.
The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the pretext that in the past, a declaration sought to be made by him as per Section 77 was not accepted and he prayed for the provision of an option to him and/or all arriving international passengers to make their truthful declaration online/via internet to comply with Section 77 of the Customs Act and Baggage Rules. By the said order, the Court left it to the custom officials to take appropriate action as and when the need arises
The petitioner submitted that the respondents did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit the declaration in respect of his baggage online and also failed to furnish the acknowledged copy of the same. It was asserted that this request was repeatedly refused, which resulted into wilful defiance of the Court’s directions by the respondent.
The Court noted that the petitioner had alleged contempt regarding the first para of the order dated 21-01-2026 and observed that this Court had in the said para only reproduced the petitioner’s prayer in the proceedings before it. The Court did not find any evidence/material placed by the petitioner to even remotely demonstrate deliberate defiance by the respondents.
The Court perused the said order and found it clear that the court had left it open to the customs authorities to take appropriate action as and when the need arises. Itt was stated that there was no other direction in the said order. The Court stated that it could not accept the petitioner’s bare averments to initiate contempt action, especially when as per the respondents, all procedures and statutory mandates under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 had been duly followed. Hence, the Court refused to invoke jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act after finding no wilful, deliberate, and/or intentional disobedience by the respondents of the judgment passed by the Court.
Further, the Court observed that interpretation of the Court’s order in a particular manner by the party alleging contempt cannot make out a case, unless the yardstick of willful and/or deliberate violation of the Court’s order is established to the Court’s satisfaction. Thus, the Court held that no case was made out and disposed of the contempt petition.
