Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Government functions in bureaucratic manner and every opinion has to be recorded in writing. The permission for granting appeal has to be in writing.”
In February 2024, the Court imposed a temporary ban on misleading advertisements and issued contempt of court notices to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
“Supreme Court said that it was constrained to take suo motu notice of the 17-07-2024 order as such orders intend to bring entire judicial machinery to disrepute and it also lowers dignity of the High Court as well and such observations were wholly unnecessary”
“If contempt cases are to linger on inordinately without compliance, the very existence of this Court is meaningless.”
In consequence, the wanton disregard to the explicit directions as made by this Court, upon the trial Judge concerned, thus prima facie constitutes contempt of Court.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Madras High Court: In a Suo Motu Civil Contempt Proceedings initiated against the contemnors for fabricating documents which were produced in court
The Court stated that when a decision of a coordinate bench of the same High Court is brought in notice, it is to be respected and is binding to the Bench of such co-equal strength. For taking a different view, it is required to refer the question to the larger bench, as it is the only course of action open to a Bench of a co-equal strength.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on contempt of court.
The Court stated that the contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised lightly at the drop of a hat. It ought to be invoked only in rare or exceptional cases where there is interference with administration of justice or such action amounts to scandalizing or lowering the authority of the Court.
The Delhi High Court refrained from taking any coercive action against advocate for contempt of Court in view of his medical condition.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, who was expected to maintain decorum placed comments in the chat box during the proceedings via video conferencing against the sitting judge and the proceedings being taken up by the Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that despite opportunities, the respondent failed to offer a genuine apology or show remorse for his actions.
Justice Aniruddha Bose, who retires on 10-04-2024 after a tenure of 5 years, had served the High Courts of Calcutta and Jharkhand as a Judge and Chief Justice respectively prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019.
The Court sternly noted that casual, lethargic and insensitive approach on the part of the authorities towards the compliance of the orders and directions of the courts cannot be tolerated.
“Disobedience of the Court orders strikes at the very root of the Rule of Law and the judicial orders are bound to be obeyed at all costs.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that the petitioner should rely on the ‘Kapil Sharma Show” recorded program and other available electronic evidence.
Justice Dipankar Datta was born on 09-02-1965 in a Bengali family. He served as a Judge in Calcutta High Court, and as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, then he was sworn in as Supreme Court Judge on 12-12-2022 by Dr Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India.
The plaintiff allegedly expressed dissatisfaction with the sequence of items taken up, questioning why Item No. 11 was addressed before Item No. 10 and used offensive language, denigrating the court’s proceedings.
“Prima facie, even before the registration of contempt case against the Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh, National Law University, Single Judge could not have given a finding that she had committed wilful disobedience of the Court’s order.”