Jharkhand High Court Slams State for Seeking Adjournment on Pretext of SLP
Court Calls Delay a “Bad Faith Ploy”
Compliance With Judicial Orders Cannot Be Stalled
By Our Legal Correspondent
Ranchi, March 2026:
The Jharkhand High Court has strongly criticized the state government for seeking adjournments by citing a proposed Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that such conduct reflects “bad faith” and amounts to deliberate non‑compliance with judicial directions.
The court was hearing a contempt application in the case of Manoj Tandon v. State of Jharkhand, where the authorities had failed to release a seized luxury vehicle despite clear orders. The state argued that it intended to file an SLP before the Supreme Court and therefore sought adjournment.
Background of the Case
The dispute involved the seizure of a Mercedes car (registration number JH01FW 0020). The High Court had earlier directed the police to release the vehicle. However, instead of complying, the state sought adjournment, citing its plan to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
Justice Choudhary rejected this argument, noting that urgent mentioning before the Supreme Court had not been allowed and that citing a “proposed SLP” was merely a tactic to stall compliance. The court ordered the immediate release of the vehicle by 4:30 PM on February 27, 2026, and cautioned officers against further delay.
Court’s Observations
- Seeking adjournment on the ground of filing an SLP without actual admission is not bona fide.
- Such conduct amounts to non‑compliance with judicial orders.
- The state’s actions reflected a deliberate attempt to stall proceedings.
- Officers were warned that failure to comply could attract contempt proceedings.
Legal Framework
Special Leave Petition (SLP) – Article 136 of the Constitution
Also Read: Karnataka Gangrape Case Raises Alarm: Why Law Warns Against Risky Associations
- Allows parties to appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgment or order of a High Court.
- Filing an SLP does not automatically stay the High Court’s order unless the Supreme Court grants interim relief.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Provides for punishment when judicial orders are wilfully disobeyed.
- Courts can impose fines or imprisonment for contempt.
Judicial Principle
- Compliance with High Court orders is mandatory unless stayed by the Supreme Court.
- Citing a “proposed SLP” cannot justify adjournment or delay.
Larger Implications
- For State Authorities: Reinforces that compliance with High Court orders cannot be stalled by citing future appeals.
- For Judiciary: Strengthens judicial authority and ensures timely enforcement of orders.
- For Citizens: Provides assurance that courts will act against deliberate delays by state officials.
- For Legal Practice: Clarifies that adjournments sought on the ground of filing SLPs must be genuine and supported by actual admission in the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Cracks Down on FMCG Counterfeiting: Permanent Injunction for HUL & P&G
[Recommended Legal Resources]
📘 Legal professionals and students alike will benefit from Will Writing Simplified, which covers procedure and case law in detail. BUY TODAY: Amazon 🔹 Flipkart
Conclusion
Also Read: Pahalgam Terror Attack: GoPro Trail Leads to China, NIA Seeks Judicial Help
The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling sends a strong message to state authorities that judicial orders must be complied with promptly. By rejecting adjournments based on “proposed SLPs,” the court has reinforced the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. This judgment is expected to guide future cases where governments attempt to stall compliance through procedural tactics.
Keywords for Faster Search
- Jharkhand High Court adjournment SLP case
- Manoj Tandon v State of Jharkhand ruling
- Contempt of Court Jharkhand HC Mercedes case
- Special Leave Petition misuse India
- Article 136 Constitution SLP law
- Jharkhand HC bad faith adjournment ruling
- Compliance with High Court orders India
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Rules Borrower of Insured Vehicle Not a ‘Third Party’