Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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