The Allahabad High Court has declined to utilize its writ jurisdiction when presented with a petition requesting the enforcement of a Supreme Court directive.

The Court based its decision on the case of "re: Ajaypal Singh and others vs State of U.P. and others," in which a division bench of the Allahabad High Court established that, when a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not adhered to, the authority to take action for contempt lies with the Supreme Court itself and not with the lower courts like the Allahabad High Court.

The petitioners had previously submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court challenging the cancellation of their appointments. When the orders issued in that case were not followed, a contempt petition was submitted. The contempt petition was resolved with the petitioners being granted permission to submit suitable representations to the authorities. These representations were to be evaluated by the authorities through a well-reasoned and detailed decision. However, a second contempt petition was filed because the authorities were not making decisions on the representations in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court expressed the view that it couldn't continuously issue directives, but it did emphasize the importance of promptly addressing the representations submitted by the petitioners.

The petitioners turned to the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction. They argued that while the Supreme Court had issued directives in a separate group of similar petitions, quashing the order of appointment cancellation and instructing that the service should continue, they should also be granted the same benefits. They contended that numerous individuals in similar situations had already been granted relief through writ jurisdiction, and they should be treated similarly.

The question before the Court revolved around whether the High Court could examine cases of non-compliance when the Supreme Court had issued orders specifically pertaining to the petitioners.  The bench, which included Justice Abdul Moin, determined that the High Court does not have the authority to compel the enforcement of any judgment issued by the Supreme Court.

The Court, as a precautionary measure, acknowledged that in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, the Supreme Court had explicitly stated that in the event of non-compliance with its directives, the relevant police officers could face contempt of court proceedings initiated before the High Court with jurisdiction over the area. However, because no such directives were issued in the current case, the High Court was unable to entertain the writ petition at hand.

As a result, the writ petition was rejected or dismissed by the Court.

Case: Deepak Dewvedi And 4 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy (Basic Education) Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lucknow And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7450 of 2023.