Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
Indian Institute Of Astrophysics – Appellant
Versus
K. Dhananjay, S/o Late K. Krishnappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
The Criminal Contempt Case No.7/2018 has been filed pursuant to a complaint and Consent Application No.9/2018 filed by the Complainant. The learned Advocate General by order dated 16.07.2023, granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the accused on the ground that he had repeatedly made false, reckless, scurrilous, and unsubstantiated allegations against Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) and Judges of the Karnataka High Court in multiple proceedings and representations. The allegations made by the accused, which had also been noticed by the CAT in earlier suo motu contempt proceedings, were found to be baseless and intended to cast aspersions on judicial officers, thereby amounting to gross contempt and undermining the authority of the courts.
2. The consent granted by the Advocate General for Karnataka, Bengaluru was challenged in Writ Petition No.60/2020 and connected matters, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.2021. Thereafter, notice was issued to the accused in the Criminal Contempt and his pleadings were placed on record.
3. In the memorandum of objections filed
The court found that making unfounded allegations against judges and judicial officers constitutes criminal contempt, undermining public confidence in the justice system.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Allegations of bias and pre-judgement against judges, made with the intent to intimidate them, constitute criminal contempt of court.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural....
Contempt of Court by Advocate – Unconditional apology tendered by contemnor cannot always dilute his act.
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
The publication by the contemnor constituted criminal contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with the administration of justice, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The court affirmed that public criticisms and unfounded allegations against judges constitute contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
