Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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