Justice Vishwanathan reminded Lord Denning. New Delhi: The India Bar Association has endorsed and appreciated the restraint, compassion and judicial maturity shown by Hon’ble Justice […]
Tag: Contempt of Court
आरटीओ चौकशी, एसआयटी आणि सक्तीची रजा प्रकरण : विजय वडेट्टीवार यांच्यावरच उलटले
न्यायप्रविष्ट प्रकरण लपवून परिवहन मंत्र्यांची दिशाभूल करून कथित बेकायदेशीर कारवाई घडवून आणल्याचा आरोप; एसआयटीची स्थापना व सक्तीच्या रजेचे आदेश सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या निर्देशांविरुद्ध, असंवैधानिक व बेकायदेशीर […]
गोदरेज के वडाला प्रोजेक्ट के संबंध में महारेरा के समक्ष गोदरेज के लिए गंभीर मुश्किलें बढ़ीं, शिकायतकर्ता ने मामले मे सुलह करने से इस आधार पर इनकार कर दिया कि यह व्यापक जनहित और अनेक होमबायर्स के साथ धोखे का मामला है;
महारेरा कोर्ट ने केस को आगे बढ़ाते हुए गोदरेज को अपना जवाबी हलफनामा तत्काल दाखिल करने का निर्देश दिया। संभावित खरीदार श्री मूर्सलीम शेख द्वारा […]
Serious trouble mounts for Godrej before MahaRERA in relation to its Wadala project, as the complainant refuses to settle the matter on the ground that it concerns larger public interest and deception of numerous Homebuyers;
RERA Court proceeds with the case and directs Godrej to file its reply affidavit forthwith. The complaint, filed by the prospective buyer, seeks cancellation […]
Fraud on Supreme Court – Union Ministry of Law and Justice Directs the Bar Council of Delhi to Take Action Under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 Against Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, Furnish an Action Taken Report to the Ministry, and Inform the Complainant. [Download the copy]
By its Communication dated 18 June 2026 (F. No. IC-15/24/2026-Imp. Cell), the Union Ministry of Law and Justice has directed the Bar Council of Delhi […]
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 […]
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, […]