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 of Kerala Holds Respondent Guilty of Contempt for Objectionable Video: “Unconditional Apology” Demanded

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Ernakulam, June 8, 2023: In a significant development, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has found Sri K.M. Shajahan, aged 61, guilty of contempt of court for an objectionable video he streamed against three judges. The court demanded an “unconditional apology” from the respondent and set a date for compliance.

During the hearing, Hon’ble Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice C.S. Sudha expressed their concern over the imputations made by the respondent in the objectionable video. Justice Suresh Kumar stated, “Even though the respondent did not tender an unconditional apology after admitting that he has committed the contempt initially, it was found by him in the course of the hearing that the arguments advanced by him are not acceptable to the court.”

The court emphasized that citizens have the right to criticize judicial orders but within the bounds of fair criticism. Justice Sudha observed, “The two spaces alluding to the involvement of the judge in the controversy cross the limits of fair criticism and hence amount to contempt of court.”

The respondent filed an affidavit acknowledging that the two spaces in the video exceeded the benchmark of fair criticism. However, the court did not accept the affidavit as an unconditional apology. Justice Suresh Kumar stated, “We are unable to accept this affidavit as an affidavit in accordance with Rule 14(a) of the Rules.”

However, the respondent later expressed his willingness to file an unconditional apology in writing. In addition, he offered to stream a video on his YouTube channel, withdrawing the imputations made against the judges and expressing regret for the objectionable video.

Taking into consideration these developments, the court permitted the respondent to file an unconditional apology, admit his contempt of court, and stream a video expressing regret. The next hearing is scheduled for June 15, 2023, where the respondent is required to be present.

The court concluded, “In order to consider the further course of action in this proceeding, the respondent can be permitted to file an unconditional apology, expressing regret for having streamed the objectionable video, after admitting that he has committed contempt of court.”

Dated this the 8th day of June, 2023.

SUO MOTU vs SRI.K.M.SHAJAHAN,

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Suo_Motu_case-v-KM-Shajahan-8June-23-Ker.-HC-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News