Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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