Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Smt.Tijiya Ahirwar vs Bihari Lal Ahirwar on 9 October, 2015

Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Gupta vs S. Ravtesh Inderjit Singh on 5 March, 2026

10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Nirbhay Singh Suliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 AIR Supreme Court 412, held that one cannot overlook the reality of ours being a country, wherein countless complainants are readily available without hesitation to tarnish the image of the judiciary, often for mere pennies or even cheap momentary popularity. Sometimes, a few disgruntled members of the Bar also join hands with them, and the officers of the subordinate judiciary are usually the easiest target. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Courts to extend their protective umbrella and ensure that the upright and straightforward judicial officers are not subjected to unmerited onslaught. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

K. Rajaiah vs The High Court For The State Of Telangana on 11 February, 2026

43. No doubt, as rightly contended by Ms. Sindoora VNL, learned counsel for the respondent, the parameters for judicial review against orders passed in disciplinary proceedings are limited. However, it is well settled that where the findings are based on no evidence a court of law is perfectly justified in interfering with the orders in disciplinary proceedings. Recently, this Court in Nirbhay Singh Suliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another3, while interfering with the findings in a disciplinary proceeding held that if the findings in the enquiry report are perverse and not supported by the evidence on record, the Court in judicial review can interfere. This Court held as under: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Court On Its Own Motion vs Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv. And Anr on 21 April, 2026

In Nirbhay Singh Suliya (supra), the Supreme Court emphasized that while great caution and circumspection must be shown in exercise of a contempt jurisdiction, a balance must be drawn between a fair criticism which would be in genuine public interest and a motivated criticism and attack which is unfounded and, therefore, against public interest. Public interest also lies in protecting the district judiciary from motivated criticism and attack.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1