Wilful disobedience and civil contempt require deliberate defiance, not a mistaken attempt to comply with court directions.

Wilful disobedience is the core element of civil contempt, and a mere mistaken interpretation or erroneous attempt at compliance does not by itself amount to contempt. The Court found that the respondents had produced the relevant records, explained the vacancy position year-wise, and taken steps in purported compliance with the earlier directions. As the materials did not show any deliberate attempt to circumvent or defy the orders, wilful contempt was not made out and the respondents were not liable to be punished.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of wilful disobedience of the Court's orders so as to amount to civil contempt.

Analysis: Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of the Court. The Court found that the respondents had placed the relevant records, explained the vacancy position year-wise, and taken steps in purported compliance with the earlier directions. A mere mistaken interpretation or an erroneous decision taken while attempting to comply with the Court's directions does not, by itself, constitute contempt. The materials did not establish a deliberate attempt to circumvent or defy the orders passed earlier.

Conclusion: Wilful contempt was not made out and the respondents were not liable to be punished.

---