Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chhotu Ram vs Urvashi Gulati & Anr on 24 August, 2001
Before proceeding with the matter further, certain basic
statutory features ought to be noticed at this juncture. The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been introduced in the Statute
Book for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the
people in general and for due and proper administration of justice in
the country undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the
law Courts but that by itself operates as a string of caution and
unless thus otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be
fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under
the Statute. The observation as above finds support from a
decision of this Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr.
(2001 (7) SCC 530), wherein one of us (Banerjee, J.) stated as
below :-
Mrityunjoy Das & Anr vs Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors on 16 March, 2001
Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. v. Sayed
Hasibur Rahaman & Ors. (2001 (3) SCC 739) and as such we need
not dilate thereon further as to the burden and standard of proof vis-
a-vis the Contempt of Courts Act - Suffice it to record that powers
under the Act should be exercised with utmost care and caution
and that too rather sparingly and in the larger interest of the society
and for proper administration of the justice delivery system in the
country. Exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971
shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter on which there exists
no doubt as regards the initiation of the action being bona fide.
It may also be noticed at this juncture that mere disobedience
of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "civil contempt"
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1