MP High Court Issues Arrest Warrants Against State Officials Who Ignored Contempt Notices and Filed No Compliance Report

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur ordered arrest warrants against two respondents in a contempt petition after they acknowledged notices but refused to engage counsel or file any compliance report.

Justice Vivek Jain, sitting singly at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, issued arrest warrants on 10 September 2026 against both respondents in Smt Sheela Sen v Shri Vivek Prowal and Others (CONC No. 4449 of 2025). The respondents had been served with contempt notices as far back as September 2025, and the Collector, District Sagar had even written to the court in December 2025 — yet neither respondent appeared through counsel nor submitted a compliance report. The court found that merely appointing a contact officer and writing letters to the Registry, while taking no further step, amounted to what it called “an absolute inertia in the matter of contempt petitions.”

The Contempt Petition and Service of Notices

The contempt petition, numbered CONC No. 4449 of 2025, was filed by Smt Sheela Sen against Shri Vivek Prowal and one other respondent. As recorded in the order of Registrar J-I dated 09.12.2025, notices had been served on the respondents in September 2025. The petitioner was represented by Ms. Kavita Gupta, Advocate, along with Shri Vidya Prasad, Advocate.

Separately, the Collector, District Sagar sent a letter dated 03.12.2025 to the court's Registry, informing it that the Tehsildar, Sagar City had been appointed as a Contact Officer to handle the contempt petition on behalf of the administration.

What the Respondents Did — and Did Not Do

The court found that the respondents were fully aware of the contempt proceedings. They had gone as far as writing a letter to the Registry. But neither respondent engaged a counsel, entered appearance before the court, nor filed any compliance report to show that the underlying court direction had been followed.

Justice Jain observed that appointing a contact officer and communicating only with the Registry, without taking the legally required steps of appearing and filing a compliance report, reflected a pattern the court described as a “very sorry state of affairs in the administration of the State Government.” The court noted that this conduct — writing to the Registry about a contact officer and then doing nothing further — had left it with no alternative.

Why Mere Appointment of a Contact Officer Is Insufficient

The court's reasoning is directed squarely at a bureaucratic practice: state authorities facing contempt proceedings sometimes treat the appointment of a contact officer as a substitute for formal engagement with the court. Justice Jain rejected that approach. A contact officer can facilitate communication, but it does not replace the obligation to engage legal counsel, enter appearance, and demonstrate compliance with the court's original directions.

The court's order makes clear that awareness of pending contempt proceedings — evidenced here by the letter sent by the Collector, District Sagar and the letter written by the respondents themselves to the Registry — removes any basis for claiming ignorance. Where aware parties still refuse to participate, the court's contempt jurisdiction must be given effect.

Outcome

Justice Vivek Jain directed that arrest warrants be issued against both respondents. The warrants for Respondent No. 1 are to be executed by the Commissioner of Police, Bhopal. The warrants for Respondent No. 2 are to be executed by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar. Both authorities are directed to ensure the presence of the respective respondents before the court on 21 September 2026. The case is listed for hearing on that date.