Sign In

Tag: precedents

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, […]