HIGH COURT JANUARY 2025 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Neeraj Bawania’s Bail; Rupali Ganguli’s Defamation Case; Mahindra Trademark Dispute; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
contempt of court
‘Fair criticism of judicial act in Internal notes does not amount to contempt’; M.P. High Court dismisses proceedings against Tehsildar, SDO
“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.”
[Patanjali Misleading Ads Case] Supreme Court drops contempt charges against Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna
In February 2024, the Court imposed a temporary ban on misleading advertisements and issued contempt of court notices to Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
‘Compliance with Supreme Court direction not a matter of choice’; SC expunges ‘gratuitous’ observations in order passed by Punjab & Haryana HC Judge
“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”
J&K High Court issues contempt notice to UT Govt. officials over careless attitude towards Judicial Order’s compliance
“If contempt cases are to linger on inordinately without compliance, the very existence of this Court is meaningless.”
Punjab and Haryana HC directs Trial Court Judge and Public Prosecutor to furnish explanation for disregarding its directions
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.
HIGH COURT JULY 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP | Stories on Reliance; Rights of Disabled Persons; NEET UG 2024; Organ trafficking; Bhopal Gas Tragedy and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
[Contempt of Court] Madras HC holds Sub Registrar and litigant guilty for fabricating Court documents; Sentences them to 2 months imprisonment and fine
Madras High Court: In a Suo Motu Civil Contempt Proceedings initiated against the contemnors for fabricating documents which were produced in court
Jharkhand HC refers contempt case against Advocate General and Additional Advocate General to larger bench for clarification in procedure to be adopted in contempt proceedings
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.
Never Reported Judgment | Charge of contempt of court must be established beyond all reasonable doubt; alleged contemnor must be given the benefit of presumption of innocence [(1953) 1 SCC 726]
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on contempt of court.
‘Healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcome’; Punjab and Haryana HC drops criminal contempt proceedings against a man for his pleadings against a Judge
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.
Delhi High Court discharges advocate for contempt of Court due to medical reasons; Directs Bar Council to assess his fitness to practice
The Delhi High Court refrained from taking any coercive action against advocate for contempt of Court in view of his medical condition.
Delhi High Court issues show cause to advocate for writing derogatory comments in chat box during virtual hearing
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.
Contempt of Court | MP High Court imposes ₹1 lakh cost on news editor for vilification of a sitting judge in a 2011 news report
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 Bids Farewell to the Supreme Court: A Throwback to his Stellar Tenure
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.
Karnataka HC initiates suo motu proceedings vis-a-vis non-compliance of Court orders by various government/semi-govt. authorities
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.
Rajasthan High Court directs State to establish ‘separate cells’ to ensure timely compliance of court order
“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 dismisses plea seeking police action against comedian Kapil Sharma in alleged Defamation case
Madhya Pradesh High Court opined that the petitioner should rely on the ‘Kapil Sharma Show” recorded program and other available electronic evidence.
Know Thy Judge| Supreme Court of India: Justice Dipankar Datta
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.
“What the F*** is going on this Court”; Delhi High Court issues contempt notice to woman for hurling abuse at Judge
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.