Contempt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLxzczTSVAo&feature=youtu.be

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/203322/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/505614/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/625529/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/219441/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/681713/
https://cjp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Supreme-Court-Judgement2017-Contempt-of-Court-Justice-Karnan-Case.pdf
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1496509/ Gujarat Magistrate was dragged. Jurisdiction
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1666530/ BCI Chairman contempt

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/11742/11742_2019_32_1501_21869_Judgement_27-Apr-2020.pdf


There was a bandh a political party in Kerala. A man died. Gopalan made statement. Pursant to that a criminial case arrested. Same statement made in a newspaper after arrest. Both were made contempt
At the time to his statement, no attempt on his party either to influence the judiciary or caruse hindrarance. By the time it was publlished, immenent criminal proceedings, hence publisher was convicted.

Majority Judgment

Separate Opinion
Does it was from arrest or from filing charge. In given case charge sheet may not be filed. Bhargave Committee made recommendation
Section 3 . The proceeding in question, stage would begin from filing the charge sheet.
Balancing of Section 3 and Article(1)

Nammordipal
CM believed in Marism. Criticism the judiciary at that time and said SC was not doing justice in certain case. Convicted. Fine Rs. 50.

Madhankar Manglankar
Attitude of judge. No contempt.


https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/11742/11742_2019_32_1501_21869_Judgement_27-Apr-2020.pdf
Shri C. K. Daphtary
and Others v. Shri O.P. Gupta and Others 1971 (1) SCC 626

Sukhdev   Singh Sodhi  v.  The  Chief  Justice  and  Judges  of  the  Pepsu  High 1954 SCR 454

No Contempt P.N.   Duda  v.  P.Shiv   Shanker   and   Others (1988) 3 SCC 167
Anil Kumar  Gupta  v.  K. Subba Rao and Ors. ILR (1974) 1 Del 1
 In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584
Supreme   Court   Bar   Association  v.  Union   of India (1998) 4 SCC 409

 Pallav Sheth v. Custodian & Ors. 2001 (7) SCC 549 ( Period of limitation is not applicable in contempt proceedings)
Biman Basu v. Kallol Guha Thakurta & Another (2010) 8 SCC 673

Bal   Thackrey v. Harish Pimpalkhute and Ors.2005 (1) SCC 254
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Others. (2008) 3 SCC 542
 Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216
 In Re: Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343

48. There can be no manner of doubt that any citizen of the country   can   criticise   the   judgments   delivered   by   any   Court including this Court.  However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge. Judges are part and parcel of the justice delivery system.  By and
large Judges are reluctant to take action under contempt laws when a personal attack is made on them.  However, when there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar who profess to be
the members of an organization having a large following, then the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous

86. We have already extracted large portions of the letters.  Both the letters on their face are totally contemptuous in nature.  No litigant has a right to attribute motives to a Judge.  No litigant
has a right to question the integrity of a Judge.  No litigant has a right to even question the ability of a Judge.  When the ability, integrity and dignity of the Judges are questioned, this is an attack on the institution.  It is an attack on the majesty of law and lowers the impression of the Courts in the public eye.  The allegations   in   the   complaints   are   scurrilous   and   scandalous. Shri Vijay Kurle and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan do not deny that they have sent these letters.  They, in fact, justify the sending of these letters.   There is not even a word of regret in any of the affidavits filed by them

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Registered Document is presumed to be valid unless otherwise proved

 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29674/29674_2019_34_1501_24672_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. 8 (2006) 5 SCC 353 The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below: “27.  There   is   a   presumption   that   a   registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of  proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.  In Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 582 "It has b...
Read more

Whether is was any reason explained to pass the order by authority

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf The matter was reminded back with an opportunity to the State to provide reasons for the administrative decision taken to rescind the policy  The authority has choice to explained the reasons or pass the fresh order on the fresh cause of action with explained reasons. There cannot be post hoc justification of the action. The post hoc justification doctrine merely requires that courts assess agency action based on the official explanations of the agency decision makers, and not based on after-the-fact explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation. As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc justification doctrine “is not a time barrier which freezes an agency’s exercise of its judgment after an initial decision has been made and bars it from further articulation of its reasoning. It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which forbids judges to uphold agency action on the basis of rationales offered by anyo...
Read more

Registration of Court Decree Mandatory or not

CA No.6835/2009 Titled Gurcharan Singh & Ors v/s Angrez Kaur & Ans dated 19.03.2020 held Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 709. In Bhoop Singh (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18:- “16. We have to view the reach of clause (vi), which is an exception to sub-section (1), bearing all the aforesaid in mind. We would think that the exception en grafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or upwards. Any other view would find the mischief of avoidance of registration, which requires payment of stamp duty, embedded in the decree or order. 17. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whe...
Read more