जहाँ अन्य नागरिकों के अधिकारों का अतिक्रमण प्रारम्भ होता है, वहीं प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता समाप्त हो जाती है। किसी भी नागरिक पर प्रेस के प्रश्नों […]
Author: youngadvocatescouncil511@gmail.com
The press has no right to compel any person to answer questions or give an interview
Freedom of the Press Ends Where It Invades the Rights of Other Citizens. No Citizen is Under Any Legal Obligation to Answer Questions or Grant […]
कोणत्याही व्यक्तीला पत्रकारांच्या प्रश्नांची उत्तरे देण्यास किंवा मुलाखत देण्यास भाग पाडण्याचा प्रसारमाध्यमांना कोणताही कायदेशीर अधिकार नाही
जेथे इतर नागरिकांच्या मूलभूत अधिकारांवर अतिक्रमण सुरू होते, तेथे प्रसारमाध्यमांच्या स्वातंत्र्याची मर्यादा संपते. कोणत्याही नागरिकावर पत्रकारांच्या प्रश्नांना उत्तरे देण्याचे किंवा स्वतःच्या इच्छेविरुद्ध मुलाखत देण्याचे कोणतेही […]
दिशा सालियन प्रकरणाच्या सुनावणीपासून न्यायमूर्ती आशीष चव्हाण यांनी स्वतःला दूर केले
न्यायमूर्ती आशीष चव्हाण यांनी दिशा सालियन प्रकरणाच्या सुनावणीपासून स्वतःला दूर केले आहे. त्यांनी याचे कारण असे सांगितले की, ज्या सोसायटीमध्ये दिशा सालियन यांचा मृत्यू झाला, […]
दिशा सालियान मामले की सुनवाई से जस्टिस आशीष चव्हाण ने खुद को अलग किया
जस्टिस आशीष चव्हाण ने दिशा सालियान मामले की सुनवाई से खुद को अलग कर लिया है। उन्होंने इसका कारण यह बताया कि जिस सोसाइटी में […]
Justice Aashish Chavan has recused himself from hearing the Disha Salian matter by giving reason that he owns a flat in the same society where Disha Salian died.
Now the matter will be heard by the Bench of Justice Smt. Bharti Dangre and Justice Smt. Manjusha Deshpande. This is the second High Court […]
Senior Advocates Hariharan, Tiku and Sachin Puri Face Calls for Prosecution perjury and Withdrawal of Senior Designation as Dr. Kapil Kakkar Escalates Fight Against Contempt Proceedings to the Chief Justice
Complaint to Chief Justice Alleges Petition Was Numbered by the Registry Without Any Affidavit or Affirmation, and Listed Without the Mandatory Consent of the Standing […]
Contempt is among the most misinterpreted and misutilised branches of law. The Court, as protector of the fundamental rights, liberties, and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, cannot invoke its contempt jurisdiction to silence constructive criticism or public-interest advocacy for judicial reform. The Court must protect not only the speech it favours, but equally the speech it finds unpalatable when directed against itself. Debate on public issues must remain uninhibited, robust, and wide open. – Judges must exercise caution before invoking it, since acting contrary to law and binding precedent in doing so may itself expose them to liability. [Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311, Hari Das v. State of W.B., (1964) 7 SCR 237, Legal Remembrancer v. Matilal Ghose, (1914) ILR 41 Cal 173, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj v. Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago, (1978) 2 WLR 902 ; McLeod v. St. Aubyn, [1899] AC 549 ; Walmik Bobde v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1731; R.S. Tamilvendan v. The Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219 ]
The taking of cognizance of a frivolous charge of contempt may attract liability under Sections 166, 219, 211, 120(B), 34, and 107 of the Indian […]
विरोधी पक्षाच्या बाजूने असलेले बंधनकारक न्यायनिवाडे (Binding Precedents) जाणीवपूर्वक लपविणे, दडपून ठेवणे किंवा रद्द (Overruled) झालेले निर्णय न्यायालये अथवा शासकीय प्राधिकरणांसमोर विद्यमान कायदा म्हणून सादर करणे हे आता केवळ व्यावसायिक गैरवर्तन (Professional Misconduct) किंवा न्यायालयाचा अवमान (Criminal Contempt) यापुरते मर्यादित राहिलेले नाही.
सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने Binding Precedents यांना “कायदेशीर पुरावा” (Legal Evidence) आणि कायद्याचा अधिकृत स्रोत (Authoritative Source of Law) म्हणून मान्यता दिल्यानंतर, अशा कृत्यांमुळे भारतीय न्याय संहिता, […]
Suppression or Withholding of Binding Precedents Favouring the Opposite Party, and Reliance on Overruled Judgments, Is Not Merely a Matter of Professional Misconduct and Criminal Contempt. The Supreme Court’s Recognition of Binding Precedents as Legal Evidence Raises the Applicability of Sections 230, 231 and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Carrying Punishment of Imprisonment Up to Seven Years Relating to Suppression of Legal Evidence, Fabrication and Use of False Evidence, and Dishonestly Making False Claims Before a Court, Punishable with Imprisonment Up to Seven Years. [M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 148; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432; Samson Arthur v. Quinn Logistic India Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 403]
Adv. Nilesh Ojha-Sanvidhani, Chairman , Indian Bar Association. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held, and most recently in M/s Eminent Colonizers Private Limited v. […]