Sign In

Category: Madras High Court

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 […]

Why Recusal Applications Alleging Personal Bias, Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, or Judicial Disqualification Must Be Determined by Another Judge, and Why Failure to Follow This Rule Vitiates the Proceedings.

A Critical and Important Principle of Natural Justice and Judicial Impartiality Often Overlooked, Misunderstood, or Insufficiently Addressed in Judicial Proceedings An Analysis of Blondine Surratt, […]

बार कौन्सिलच्या त्या सदस्यांना उच्च न्यायालयाचा दणका – सनद रद्द होण्याची शक्यता

बार कौन्सिलचे सदस्य, काही वकील किंवा वकील संघटना जर ठराव पास करून, अथवा अप्रत्यक्षरीत्या इतर वकिलांवर दबाव टाकून एखाद्या व्यक्तीची केस स्वीकारू नये असे सांगत […]