SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Guj) 123

A.P.RAVANI
NAROTTAMDAS L. SHAH – Appellant
Versus
PATEL MAGANBHAI REVABHAI – Respondent


A. P. RAVANI J.

( 1 ) SOME questions of vital public importance have arisen in this petition. On this point at least the learned Counsels appearing for rival parties appear to be ad idem. The questions are: Does it behove to the lawyers as a class to resort to strike and if any one publicly comments and publishes the same in a rather unhappy or unpleasant language would it amount to defamation of an individual member of the class of lawyers? Further if the insinuating remarks are directed against the entire class of lawyers would it amount to an offence of defamation so as to attract the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code?

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the complainant since September 23, 1983 the lawyers in Gujarat were protesting against the interference of the Government in judiciary. On account of the agitation they ceased to participate in Court proceedings and resorted to Satyagraha. As stated in the Resolution passed on February 2, 1984 by the Executive Committee of the State Bar Council of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the Bar Council) which is produced on record the agitation was with respect to the appointment and transfer of Chief Justices of High Court































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top