SC slams Punjab Govt over ‘most shameless’ statement

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Punjab government for what it termed the “most shameless” act of arguing that a statement made by the state’s law officer regarding pensionary benefits for employees of government-aided colleges could not bind the government because it was a statement made by “an executive.”

A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh took Punjab chief secretary KAP Sinha, who appeared virtually, to task for failing to implement previous court orders and reneging on official assurances. The court warned Sinha that either the state remedy the situation or those responsible must face contempt action.

“This is taking the court for a ride. Repeated undertakings were given to the court, and then the latest stand shamelessly states that the law officer’s statement cannot bind the government because it was made by an executive. This is the most shameless act on the part of the government. Can you justify this?” the bench asked Sinha.

The court demanded a clear answer from the Punjab government on whether it would provide the pensionary benefits as recorded in previous judicial orders. “Just give us the answer in a yes or no. Either comply or we will record that you are refusing to answer,” it said.

Advocate general Gurminder Singh sought a week to submit a response, citing a “subsequent legislation” that, he claimed, constrained the chief secretary’s ability to act. However, the court refused to grant further extensions, emphasising that ample time had been given.

“We cannot give more time. The state of Punjab is so powerful that it says the statements by its law officers are mere statements of the executive,” the bench said.

Taking note of the state’s non-compliance, the court proposed issuing a contempt notice, both civil and criminal, against Sinha, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

Singh pleaded for a week’s time, assuring of positive action. “Take it from me…I will do something positive. Just give me some time and I will come back with something that satisfies the court.”

Accepting Singh’s request, the bench deferred its show-cause notice of contempt against Sinha, even as it said: “We are shocked to hear that a statement was made across the bar that a law officer’s statement does not bind the government. If this approach is allowed, courts will find it extremely difficult to accept statements made by state law officers in the future,” said the bench, scheduling the next hearing for March 24.

Senior counsel PS Patwalia represents the aggrieved employees in the case.

The court’s frustration stems from the Punjab government’s repeated failure to implement the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government-Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1996. The scheme, introduced on December 18, 1996, aimed to provide pensionary benefits to employees of government-aided colleges. However, its implementation has been mired in bureaucratic delays and legal maneuvering for nearly three decades.

In response to a petition seeking enforcement of the scheme, the Punjab and Haryana high court, in July 2001, directed the government to implement it within three months. However, instead of complying, the state repeatedly sought extensions.

On May 2, 2002, the principal secretary of higher education appeared before the high court and expressed regret for failing to implement the scheme. Instead of enforcing contempt proceedings, the court granted another extension, noting an undertaking by the state’s additional advocate general that the scheme would be implemented by June 15, 2002.

Rather than following through, the Punjab government introduced the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Affiliated Aided Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2002, which effectively diluted the 1996 Scheme. The new rules led to fresh litigation, and in 2011, the Punjab government assured the high court that the rules would be withdrawn. Despite multiple court orders and undertakings, the state delayed compliance by repeatedly citing procedural hurdles and seeking adjournments.

On December 12, 2012, Punjab repealed the 2002 rules. However, instead of restoring the 1996 Scheme, the government passed a new law repealing the scheme with retrospective effect from April 1, 1992, further frustrating the petitioners’ rights.

The Supreme Court, in its February 18, 2025 order, strongly criticised the state for repeatedly misleading the courts and failing to honour its commitments while rejecting the state’s argument that the 2002 statement made by the state’s additional advocate general before the high court cannot bind the government.

The previous court order condemned the government’s attempt to shift blame onto the executive, saying: “The State Government escaped contempt action by giving undertakings to the court on multiple occasions. However, it never abided by them. The state cannot now claim that statements made by its law officers do not bind the government. Such an approach will undermine the credibility of statements made before the courts.”

The court decried the state’s “ploy” of framing new rules and seeking adjournments to avoid compliance, warning that such conduct undermined judicial authority.