Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Section 6 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State vs Brahma Prakash And Ors. on 5 May, 1950
In State Vs. Brahma Prakash, AIR 1950 Alld. 556 this Court said that no Judge is immune from criticism but the criticism must take form of reasonable argument or ex- postulation. It must be made in good faith. It must be free from imputation of improper motives. Criticism of a judicial act which cannot reasonably be said to be within the limits will be contempt.
Rex vs B.S. Nayyar on 31 January, 1950
In Rex Vs. B.S. Nayyar, AIR 1950 Alld. 549 this Court said that the complaints must be genuine, made in a proper manner with the object of obtaining redress and not made malafide, with a view to exert pressure upon the Court in exercise of its judicial function or to diminish authority of the Court by vilifying it. It should not be in furtherance of justice to stifle them by means of summary action for contempt.
P.N. Duda vs V. P. Shiv Shankar & Others on 15 April, 1988
In P.N. Duda Vs. P. Shiv Shankar and others 1988 3 SCC 167 the Court said that justice is not a cloistered virtue. she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men. Administration of justice and Judges are open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged by their conscience and oath of their office, that is, to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour, but Any criticism about the judicial system or the Judges which hampers the administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of Judges and brings administration of justice into ridicule must be prevented. The Courts cannot ignore attempts made to decry or denigrate the judicial process, when it is done with quite seriousness.
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 October, 1999
In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308, in para 7 of the judgment the Court said:
Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn vs R.K.Jain on 13 August, 2010
43. Recently, the aforesaid definitions of the term 'scandalise' has been quoted with approval in Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association Vs. R.K. Jain 2010 8 SCC 281.