Internal file notings cannot by themselves found contempt; wilful disobedience must be proved from a formal governmental order.

Internal departmental notings, by themselves, do not amount to an executable governmental order under Article 166, and contempt cannot rest merely on opinions or remarks recorded before a formal order is made. Wilful disobedience must be shown from operative governmental action, not from preliminary file views, and the internal notes file was treated as privileged or quasi-privileged for this purpose. On the material presented, the Court found insufficient proof that the individual appellant had acted in wilful disregard of the court's order. The contempt findings were therefore set aside and the appeals succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether contempt could be founded solely on internal file notings and whether the convictions for contempt could be sustained on that basis.

Analysis: Internal departmental notings are part of the decision-making process and do not, by themselves, amount to an executable governmental order. Under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, executive action of a State becomes effective only when expressed in the name of the Governor and authenticated in the prescribed manner. Mere expressions of opinion, suggestions, or even objectionable remarks in internal files, before they culminate in a formal order, do not constitute disobedience of a court order within the meaning of contempt law. The Court also treated the internal notes file as a privileged or quasi-privileged record and held that contempt proceedings should not be initiated merely because a court, upon summoning the file, finds views inconsistent with its earlier directions. As regards the individual appellant, the material was held insufficient to prove beyond doubt that he had acted in wilful disregard of the court's order.

Conclusion: Contempt could not be sustained merely on the basis of internal notings, and the conviction of the appellants was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the contempt findings recorded by the High Court were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Internal governmental notings, not translated into a formal and communicated executive order, cannot by themselves form the basis of contempt; wilful disobedience must be established from the operative governmental action, not from preliminary departmental opinions.

---