Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.49 seconds)Article 129 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc-Etc on 11 September, 1991
In this connection it is necessary to refer to the decision in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, . In that decision, in the context, of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that procedure for criminal contempt is not a criminal proceeding for it is punishable by the superior Courts by fine or imprisonment, but it has many characteristics which distinguishes it from ordinary offence. The proceeding is a quasi-criminal in character. Therefore, aforesaid contention too cannot be sustained.
Section 3 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Vishwanath vs E.S. Venkatramaih And Others on 2 March, 1990
18. The first contention taken by the learned counsel Mr. Aney is that the imputation being against four unnamed judges that will not constitute contempt. He made reliance on the decision in the case of Vishwanath v. E. S. Venkatramaih, 1990 Cri LJ 2179 (Bombay) (referred to early). Particular reference was made by the learned counsel to para-12 of the said decision in support of his contention. Apart from the fact that the said case rests on different set of facts, the statement of the first respondent to the effect that since the said four judges are the associates of the accused, the family of Manorama Kamble will not get justice and, therefore, one of the three judges of this Court has to try the case reveals that they have no faith in the subordinate judiciary. The said statement as a whole is scandalous and will lower the authority of Court and, therefore, would constitute contempt. The touch stone, on which whether a particular allegation would amount to contempt or not is tested is as to what a common man would in his assessment understand by the said imputation. It should be at once observed that the power to punish for contempt is not aimed to protect the judge, but it is vested in this Court in public interest so that the public may have faith in this institution that it is manned by men of character who would render justice without fear or favour.
Section 5 in The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
Sewakram Sobhani vs R.K. Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly ... on 1 May, 1981
In the context of interpreting Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. as well as Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, in the decision in Sewakaram Sobhani v. R. K. Karanjiya, , the Supreme Court observed :