Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA
In Reference (Suo Motu) – Appellant
Versus
N. S. Poonia S/o Sher Singh Poonia – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
These suo motu contempt proceedings have been initiated against respondent – Narinder Singh Poonia as per the order given by the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice dated 09.07.2013.
2. For effective adjudication of the instant petitions, the facts leading to initiation of the proceedings are required to be dealt with in a nutshell. It is undisputed that the respondent was the Founder & Editor and Publisher of a journal titled as ‘Lost Justice’. He had published certain articles in the journal ‘Lost Justice’ in Volume 03 Issue No.03 of July to September, 2010, making allegations against certain sitting Judges of this Court, indicating and commenting about the manner in which certain cases were decided by them on the judicial side. Finding the publication to be amounting to contempt of court, after due approval of the Acting Chief Justice on 09.07.2023, suo-motu proceedings have been initiated against the respondent under Section 2(c)(i) and (ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. The comments which have been published in the said journal clearly scandalize the image of the judiciary and
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an advocate's conduct of making false, baseless, and mischievous allegations against the court and its judges, thereby scandalizing and loweri....
The court affirmed its power to take suo motu action in instances of criminal contempt that undermine judicial authority, irrespective of the Advocate General's opinion.
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.
Statements undermining the judiciary and attributing improper motives to judges constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, warranting strict action to uphold judicial authority.
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.
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
Listen Article