Orissa HC Issues Show Cause Notice to Retired DGP for Contempt, Rejects State's Plea to Stall Proceedings Over Pending SLP
Despite the State filing an SLP before the Supreme Court, the Orissa High Court refused to halt contempt proceedings against the retired Director General of Police, issuing a show cause notice under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, on 24 August 2026, refused to stay contempt proceedings against Mr. Yogesh Bahadur Khurania, the former Director General of Police (DGP) of Odisha, despite the State government having filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the underlying order. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra, sitting singly, directed that a show cause notice be issued to Mr. Khurania to explain why he should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and deliberate disobedience of a writ court order. The court drew on settled Supreme Court authority to hold that the mere pendency of an SLP, without a stay, provides no justification for halting contempt proceedings.
The Contempt Proceedings and the Underlying Order
The contempt petition, CONTC No. 362 of 2026, arises from an order dated 25 September 2025 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 32287 of 2020, filed by petitioner Sagarika Parida against the State of Odisha and others. That writ order was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court vide judgment dated 22 June 2026 in Writ Appeal No. 357 of 2026. The DGP of Police, Mr. Y.B. Khurania, was the sole contemnor named in CONTC No. 362 of 2026.
When the matter was last before the court on 31 July 2026, the learned State Counsel had given an undertaking to file a complete compliance affidavit within four weeks. Four weeks' additional time had been granted for that purpose. On 24 August 2026, instead of the promised compliance affidavit, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Mr. M.R. Mohanty, produced a photocopy of instructions received from the Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Odisha, Kataka.
The State's Request to Lie Over the Contempt Proceedings
The letter from the I.G. of Police (Personnel) disclosed that following the dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 357 of 2026, the State government, acting on a Law Department letter dated 7 August 2026, had decided to file an SLP before the Supreme Court. That SLP was filed on 22 August 2026 and was registered as SLP(C) Diary No. 51684 of 2026. The letter requested the Advocate General to apprise the High Court of this development and to seek a stay of the contempt proceedings until the SLP was finally decided.
The State Counsel separately submitted that Mr. Khurania had superannuated on 16 August 2026, and argued that the contempt petition ought to be dropped because the new incumbent holding the post of DGP had not been impleaded as a party.
Why the Court Declined to Halt Proceedings
Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra rejected both contentions. On the question of the pending SLP, the court applied the principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in Asit Kumar Das v. J. Panda, Chief Post Master General and Others, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 400. That decision holds that the filing of an appeal does not render the assailed order inoperative or unworthy of compliance, and that absent a stay from the Supreme Court, a High Court is not justified in removing a contempt petition from its list.
The court observed that the SLP had not even been registered — the defects in the petition remained uncured at the time of the hearing — and that no interim stay had been granted by the Supreme Court. In the absence of any legal embargo, the court found there was no bar to proceeding further.
On superannuation, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad and Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 322, which holds that persons equally responsible for implementing a court's order can be held liable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 even if they were not party to the original proceeding or the contempt petition. The court found that Mr. Khurania, even after retirement, remained answerable because, instead of disclosing in his affidavit that the State intended to challenge the court's order, he had sought time for compliance through an undertaking. The court found this conduct amounted to misleading affidavits being filed before it.
The court observed that it was of a prima facie view that the conduct constituted a clear case of willful flouting of its order, warranting action under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It directed that the contempt proceedings would lie against Mr. Khurania in his personal capacity, apart from the present incumbent and any other officer responsible for non-compliance.
Directions Issued to the Current DGP and I.G. (Personnel)
Recognising that the obligation to comply with the writ order does not dissolve with one officer's retirement, the court also brought the acting DGP within its purview. It directed that a copy of the order be communicated urgently to the present DGP (in-charge), describing that officer as equally responsible for ensuring compliance with the order dated 25 September 2025, which had been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 357 of 2026.
The court directed the State Counsel to ensure compliance within four weeks. It warned that in the event of continued non-compliance, the present DGP (in-charge) and the I.G. of Police (Personnel), Odisha, Kataka — who authored the letter dated 24 August 2026 requesting the stay of proceedings — would be required to remain personally present before the court on 28 September 2026 at 10:30 a.m.
Outcome
The court directed the office to issue a show cause notice forthwith to Mr. Yogesh Bahadur Khurania, son of Late Mohan Bahadur Khurania, through the office of the I.G. of Police (Personnel), Odisha, Kataka, along with a copy of the order. The notice requires him to show cause as to why he should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The I.G. of Police (Personnel) was directed to serve the notice and report compliance preferably within seven days. Mr. Khurania was directed to file his response to the show cause notice within seven days of receipt. The matter was listed for 28 September 2026.