Now Reading: Punjab chief secretary apologises in DA contempt case, HC not satisfied
-
01
Punjab chief secretary apologises in DA contempt case, HC not satisfied
Punjab chief secretary apologises in DA contempt case, HC not satisfied
The Story in Brief
Punjab chief secretary K A P Sinha on Friday (30 October 2026) tendered an unconditional apology in criminal contempt proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the dearness allowance (DA) case, stating he was 'not well conversant with legal procedures'. The division bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Ravinder Malik was not satisfied and directed him to file a detailed affidavit, with the matter adjourned to 5 November.
The Times of India reports the court questioned the state government's failure to get its appeal against the DA order listed before the Supreme Court, observing that its conduct did 'not inspire confidence'. The Tribune reports that senior advocate Sanjay Kaushal, appearing for petitioner employees, argued the chief secretary had perpetuated the contempt, and noted the court took issue with a defect as minor as non-payment of Rs 520 court fees preventing the SLP listing. The bench orally remarked: 'Does the Punjab Government even have Rs 520 right now?'
The state informed the court it intended to challenge the criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. Sinha submitted his Oct 5 affidavit was based on information supplied to him, including an SC website status check, and that he never intended to mislead. The court said the delay appeared a 'deliberate, designed effort' to avoid listing. The civil contempt matter is listed for 3 November.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Both outlets report the same court observations and apology, but The Tribune adds sharper details that amplify the court's frustration: the Rs 520 court-fee defect, the bench's sarcastic remark, and the petitioner's argument that the chief secretary 'perpetuated' contempt by denying intent. The Times of India focuses more on the procedural sequence and the chief secretary's explanation, framing the apology and the court's directive for a fresh affidavit as the main forward step. Together, the coverage shows the court was uniformly displeased with the state's conduct, but The Tribune's account suggests that irritation reached openly combative exchanges. Neither outlet gives the state's side much weight beyond the chief secretary's stated reliance on the advocate-on-record. The next concrete point is the 5 November hearing for the detailed affidavit.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), tribuneindia.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
