Back
C. JAYACHANDRAN
P. M. Kurian, S/O. Late P. M. Mathai – Appellant
Versus
Deepa Mohanan, W/O. N. M Satheesan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
This Court is called upon to perform the unfortunate task of answering allegations of contempt against i). a judicial officer, ii). the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and iii). plaintiff nos.1 and 3 on rather strange, weird and specious grounds. Curiously, the petitioner herein is the Counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.838/2018, of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit' for brevity). The instant proceeding, being a clear abuse of the process of the court, as would be unfurled by the following facts and discussion, is a matter of serious concern. The petitioner - supposedly a responsible member of the legal profession and an important stakeholder in the dispensation of justice to the parties before the court - has stooped down to the extent of hurling unfounded and wanton allegations of contempt, not only against a judicial officer, but also against his own counter part appearing for the plaintiffs, a clear aberration to the fraternity and comity expected to be maintained between the members of the legal profession.
2. Initially, a defect was noted by the Registry as to w
A member of the legal profession must act with integrity and responsibility, and allegations of contempt must be substantiated by clear evidence of willful disobedience to a court order; frivolous co....
The judgment emphasizes the need to respect judicial independence and pursue legal remedies for challenging judicial decisions.
The court affirmed that public criticisms and unfounded allegations against judges constitute contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.
Allegations of bias and pre-judgement against judges, made with the intent to intimidate them, constitute criminal contempt of court.
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....
Contempt of Court by Advocate – Unconditional apology tendered by contemnor cannot always dilute his act.
The judgment highlights the gravity of contempt for derogatory statements against judicial authority, emphasizing accountability under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to procedural rules in contempt proceedings, particularly regarding the requirement for clear allegations and the proper initiation of actions u....
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
