The Madras High Court delivered a stern message to the Indian administrative system this week, holding senior IAS officer and former CMDA (Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) Member Secretary Anshul Mishra guilty of contempt of court. Justice P. Velmurugan directed that Mishra undergo one month of simple imprisonment for wilful disobedience of court orders concerning a land reconveyance dispute dating back decades.
While the sentence was suspended to allow for appeal, the judgment comes with a firm deadline. The court emphasized that in the absence of an appeal within 30 days, the prison term must be enforced.
A Long Legal Battle for Two Elderly Petitioners
The case stems from a prolonged legal struggle by two aged siblings, R. Lalithambal and K.S. Viswananthan, who sought the return of their ancestral land in Chennai. Originally acquired in 1983 for public purposes, the land remained unused for decades, prompting the siblings to seek reconveyance.
Also Read: Attention Startups! Showcase Your Smart Policing Solutions on India’s Biggest Stage
Despite a November 2023 High Court order requiring CMDA to resolve the matter within two months, Mishra failed to comply before being transferred in February 2025. The court not only condemned the non-compliance but ordered Mishra to personally pay ₹25,000 in compensation to the petitioners—explicitly barring the use of public funds.
“Public Service Is a Trust, Not a Privilege”
Justice Velmurugan’s observations serve as a searing indictment of official apathy. “Public service is not a privilege but a trust reposed in the officials by the people,” he wrote, adding that “deliberate failure to act amounts to wilful disobedience and constitutes contempt of court.”
The court also warned that this was not an isolated case. “Such conduct by public authorities,” the judge noted, “is seen across many cases where poor and aggrieved litigants are compelled to initiate contempt proceedings just to enforce their rights.”
As the legal community reflects on this landmark ruling, it is seen as both a rare exercise of judicial teeth and a much-needed wake-up call to bureaucrats: the court’s orders are not to be taken lightly, no matter how senior the officer.