Back
NITIN JAMDAR, S. MANU
Suo Motu, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
ORDER :
(Nitin Jamdar, CJ.)
This suo motu petition is placed before us on the judicial side by the Registry under the roster assignment “suo motu matters in judicial practice and procedure" in view of the order dated 25 July 2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cont. Case (C) No. 551 of 2024 and connected cases.
2. The Division Bench highlighted the delays in listing contempt cases, restoration petitions, time extension petitions, etc., when one among the Judges of the Division Bench retires, when the Judge who passed the order/judgment while sitting in Single retires or when both the Judges of the Division Bench are part of different Benches as per the Roster. We have passed a separate order regarding Restoration Petitions (MJC) and time extension petitions.
3. Presently, in this Court, Contempt Petitions are being placed before the same Bench or Judge who passed the original order. The Registry has highlighted that following such a procedure causes delays and the constitution of a special bench outside the Roster, thereby affecting the regular functioning of the court.
4. According to us, such a procedure is not warranted. No Rule mandates such a procedure. The order of
Civil contempt pertains to the High Court as an institution, not individual judges, and should be assigned according to the roster to ensure timely resolution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be scrupulously followed, and the powers under Article 215 of t....
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
The Regulation-making power cannot be exercised so as to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations or disabilities which are not contemplated in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
Judiciary possesses inherent powers under Article 215 to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings, independent of the Contempt of Courts Act, while conduct undermining judicial authority constitutes bo....
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
