The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging non-implementation of its judgment directing the provincialisation of the services of eligible music teachers in Assam under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Reorganisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Vipul Pancholi.
The contempt petitions arise from the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 18 November 2025, which recognised that teachers whose names had been recommended by the District Scrutiny Committees under the erstwhile 2011 Provincialisation Act had acquired vested rights and directed the State to consider their claims in accordance with law. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court had already held that eligible teachers whose recommendations had been processed under the 2011 Act could not be deprived of provincialisation merely because the legislation was subsequently declared unconstitutional.
The petitioners argued that many of the present applicants belonged to the category of teachers whose claims had been verified and recommended by the District Scrutiny Committees but whose services had still not been provincialised. They urged the Court not to drive them to fresh rounds of litigation where their cases were squarely covered by the earlier judgment.
Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli submitted that the Government was examining the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment and attempting to evolve a mechanism that would ensure compliance while also verifying the eligibility of individual claimants under the statutory framework. He informed the Bench that the State was considering different categories of cases to ensure that no ineligible person received the benefit of provincialisation.
The Bench observed that while the State was entitled to verify individual eligibility, the exercise could not become a means of indefinitely delaying compliance with the Court’s directions. It also indicated that individual factual disputes could be examined separately where necessary, while broader categories of similarly situated teachers could be dealt with together.
During the contempt proceedings, the Court expressed dissatisfaction over the manner in which instructions were being provided to the State’s counsel. Justice Amanullah remarked that counsel often bear the brunt of the Court’s displeasure because of lapses by officials and emphasised that senior bureaucrats must respond promptly to requests for instructions. Addressing the Chief Secretary of Assam, the Bench cautioned that if it found that officers were not cooperating with counsel, it would take the matter seriously, observing that such conduct could even invite suo motu contempt.
At the request of the State and after noting issues relating to service of notice in some matters, the Court agreed to defer framing of contempt charges and posted the matters for 1:00 PM on the following day, directing the alleged contemnors to remain present and indicating that the issue of compliance would be taken up then.