The State’s duty to implement judicial directions

The State accepted that it remained duty-bound to implement the Supreme Court’s directions. The State of Uttar Pradesh was impleaded as respondent no. 2. The refund order was directed to that respondent. The earlier administrative rejection did not prevent the Court from issuing case-specific relief. Payment was linked to return of the physical stamp papers. The two-month period provided a defined deadline. The order sought to make the relief practically effective. Compliance must follow the express terms of the direction. (Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr. | 2026 INSC 10)