Supreme Court Deprecates Practice of Remanding Matters for Mere Consideration

The Supreme Court of India, in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026 INSC 175), passed an important order criticising the growing judicial practice of remanding cases to authorities merely for “consideration” or “reconsideration.” The Court observed that such directions often prolong litigation without providing effective relief to litigants.

Although the matter arose from contempt proceedings relating to lecturers’ salary claims in a private college in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court used the opportunity to make significant observations on judicial efficiency, clarity in judicial orders, and misuse of contempt jurisdiction.

The Court emphasised that constitutional remedies must provide real relief and should not become procedural exercises that result only in repeated administrative reconsideration.

This order is important because it addresses a systemic issue in Indian litigation, the tendency of courts to avoid final adjudication by directing authorities to “consider” claims repeatedly.

Facts of the Case

The dispute originated in the early 1990s when the respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college receiving partial financial assistance from the State Government.

In 2000, the Government introduced a policy prohibiting financial assistance to non-aided colleges. As a result, the lecturers were paid salaries under the self-financing scheme by the college management instead of receiving State-funded salaries.

The lecturers filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking:

• Creation of lecturer posts, and
• Payment of regular salaries from State funds.

In 2010, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director of Education to examine the matter and pass a speaking and reasoned order.

Administrative Orders

In compliance with the High Court’s order, the Director of Education rejected the lecturers’ claim in March 2011.

The authority held that:

• The Government had banned the creation of posts in non-aided colleges.
• Lecturer posts could not be sanctioned.
• Salaries could not be paid from State funds.

The lecturers again approached the High Court.

Repeated Remands

In 2013, the High Court quashed the administrative order and again directed reconsideration of the lecturers’ claim.

Following reconsideration, the authorities again rejected the claim, stating that:

• The lecturers were appointed under a self-financed scheme.
• Salaries were payable by the management.
• State funding was not permissible.

This order was also challenged before the High Court.

In 2023, the High Court again remanded the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration.

Contempt Proceedings

The respondents later filed contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the High Court’s orders.

During contempt proceedings:

• Several affidavits were filed.
• The High Court repeatedly rejected the affidavits.
• Fresh affidavits were ordered.

Eventually, the High Court passed an interim order directing the contempt case to be listed for framing of charges, which was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Endless Litigation

The Supreme Court noted that the litigation had continued for over sixteen years without resolution.

The Court described the process as involving:

• Multiple rejection orders
• Successive reconsideration directions
• Endless affidavits

The Court observed that such proceedings reflected poorly on the functioning of the legal system.

2. Criticism of “Consider Jurisprudence”

The Court strongly criticised the growing tendency to issue directions merely requiring authorities to consider claims.

It described this approach as “consider jurisprudence”, noting that such directions effectively shift responsibility from courts to administrative authorities.

The Court observed that such practice:

• Delays justice
• Creates repetitive litigation
• Weakens judicial remedies.

The Court emphasised:

If a claim is legally justified, relief must follow.

The Court clarified that constitutional remedies are intended to provide actual relief, not academic directions.

3. Judicial Remedies Must Be Effective

The Court emphasised that legal remedies must be:

• Simple
• Effective
• Efficient

The Court observed that judicial practice must ensure that litigants obtain meaningful relief instead of procedural directions.

4. Need for Clear Judicial Directions

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not issued clear directions regarding:

• The existence of a legal right
• Its violation
• The obligation of the Government.

Because of this lack of clarity:

• Authorities repeatedly rejected the claim.
• Litigation continued indefinitely.

The Court emphasised that judicial directions must clearly specify:

• What is required to be done
• Who must comply
• How compliance must occur.

Misuse of Contempt Jurisdiction

The Court also addressed the misuse of contempt jurisdiction. It observed a growing tendency to invoke contempt proceedings for quick relief even when appealable orders exist.

In the present case:

• The Government had passed a detailed order in May 2025.
• That order was not challenged.
• Instead, contempt proceedings were initiated.

The Court held that the appropriate remedy was to challenge the administrative order through a writ petition.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with important directions.

Filing of Fresh Writ Petition

The respondents were permitted to challenge the Government order dated 9 May 2025.

Final Decision by High Court

The High Court was directed to:

• Hear the writ petition along with contempt proceedings.
• Pass final orders.

No Further Remand

The Court directed that:

• The High Court shall not remand the matter again.
• The Government’s position is already clear.

Clear Final Orders Required

The High Court was directed:

• Either to grant relief with clear directions, or
• To dismiss the petition with reasons.

Expedited Disposal

The Court requested disposal by 30 April 2026, considering the long delay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Mahendra Prasad Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026 INSC 175) is an important intervention aimed at improving judicial practice.

By criticising the routine practice of remanding matters for mere consideration, the Court emphasised that constitutional remedies must provide effective relief. The order highlights the need for clear judicial directions, proper use of contempt jurisdiction, and final adjudication of disputes.

The order serves as an important reminder that justice must not be delayed through repetitive remands and procedural directions. Courts must provide decisive and meaningful remedies so that litigants obtain real relief and the rule of law is strengthened.

Important Link