Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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   

Latest Legal News