A curious and troubling case—resembling a game of hide-and-seek between the Indian bureaucracy and the judiciary—has come to light. The matter relates to Harendra Pratap Singh vs. Union of India & Others, in which the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) appears to have presented contradictory facts before the Supreme Court and under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In submissions before the Supreme Court, the MSME Ministry stated that the total arrears payable to Mr. Pratap in a service-related matter amount to ₹2.53 lakh. However, in response to an RTI query in the same case, the Ministry disclosed that the arrears amount to only ₹84,000. This raises a serious question: Which statement is correct—the one made before the Supreme Court or the one given under RTI or are both incorrect ?

On this glaring contradiction, senior IAS officer Subhash Chandra Lal Das, Secretary, MSME Ministry and Dr. Rajneesh, Additional Secretary, have so far maintained complete silence.

Allegations of Misrepresentation of Facts

The case stems from the Delhi High Court’s August 2022 judgment in favour of upgrading the post of Assistant Editor (Hindi) wef 01.01.2006. It is alleged that ASO Rajesh Sukumaran, Deputy Director Pankaj Kumar Jha and Additional Development Commissioner Dr. Ishita Ganguly Tripathi of the MSME Ministry misrepresented and distorted facts, thereby causing embarrassment to the Government of India.

During their respective tenures, despite clear judicial directions from the Delhi High Court, no timely compliance process was initiated, nor has the judgment been fully implemented to date.

Subsequently Rajesh Sukumaran, after promotion to Assistant Director, retired on October 31, 2025.

IEDS officer Pankaj Kumar Jha was promoted to Joint Director and transferred from Delhi to Ludhiana.

Dr. Ishita Ganguly Tripathi was transferred from the MSME Ministry to the Ministry of Defence.

Despite these changes, the case—having already traversed three rounds at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), two at the Delhi High Court and one at the Supreme Court—has now been pending since 2023 as a contempt of court matter before the Delhi High Court.

Government Absence in Contempt Proceedings

The MSME Ministry’s apparent indifference has continued even in the contempt proceedings. On December 10, 2025, the date fixed for hearing the contempt petition filed against Secretary Subhash Chandra Lal Das, neither a government advocate nor any responsible official appeared before the court. As a result, the matter has now been deferred to a date in the coming year.

RTI Reveals Further Irregularities

Meanwhile, copies of internal note sheets obtained under the RTI Act reveal instances of incorrect information, deliberate delays and administrative negligence by above officials including Joint Director Gaurav Katiyar and Deputy Director Sanjay Kumar.

In light of these revelations, the affected party has initiated separate legal action regarding these violations.

This case raises serious concerns about administrative accountability, judicial compliance and transparency and poses a fundamental question: Can contradictory statements by the government before constitutional courts and under statutory transparency laws go unchecked?