Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court

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