Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

High Court Discharges Suo Motu Contempt Notices Against Advocates for Alleged Incidents During Protests

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi discharged the suo motu contempt notices issued against several advocates for their alleged involvement in obstruction of justice, manhandling, and destruction of property during protests held at the District Courts of Delhi. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Siddharth Mridul, Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Bhatnagar, and Hon'ble Mr. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta on July 28, 2023.

The Court, while addressing the facts and evidence presented, including reports by the then District & Sessions Judge, complaints by other Judges, and video footage, found no substantial evidence directly linking the advocates' protest to the damage caused to courtrooms. It observed that there was no conclusive proof of obstruction of justice or acts of manhandling and destruction of property attributable to the alleged contemnors.

"Consequently, the material including the subject videos fail to provide any direct evidence connecting the damage allegedly caused to court rooms with the Advocates' protest. Furthermore, the videos do not furnish any evidence of Advocates manhandling their colleagues, obstructing the Administration of Justice, or supporting any other allegations made against the alleged Contemnors in the present proceedings. Hence, there exists no substantial evidence to establish obstruction of justice, acts of manhandling, or destruction of property." (Para 33)

The Court emphasized that these proceedings had been pending since 2006, and expressed its appreciation for the expressed remorse of the alleged contemnors and their affirmation of utmost respect for the judiciary. It concluded that the alleged contemnors never intended to cause distress or undermine the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law.

"Additionally, during the course of the present proceedings all the alleged Contemnors/Respondents have also expressed their deep remorse and have stated that they have utmost respect for the institution of judiciary and that it was never their intention to cause any distress or to do anything that could be construed as undermining the majesty and dignity of the Court of Law." (Para 34)

The Court, in its ruling, also clarified that it had the jurisdiction to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings, and consent from any party, including the learned Attorney General, was not a prerequisite.

"From the perusal of various judgments of this Court, including those of the Constitution Benches, it could be seen, that the source of power of this Court for proceeding for an action of contempt is under Article 129... It has been held, that the Court is vested with the constitutional powers to deal with the contempt and Section 15 is not the source of the power to issue notice for contempt... It is equally well settled, that once the Court takes cognizance, the matter is purely between the Court and the contemnor. The only requirement is that, the procedure followed is required to be just and fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice." (Para 29)

With this ruling, the High Court discharged the show-cause notices issued to the alleged contemnors, thereby concluding the long-pending criminal contempt proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2023

CONTEMPT OF  COURT  vs PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE TIS HAZARI COURT LAWYERS   

Similar News