Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JOBIN SEBASTIAN
Suo Motu High Court of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
P.K. Suresh Kumar S/o Kunjan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of contempt proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. respondent's arguments and admissions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. detailed examination of evidence and credibility. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. legal definition and principles of criminal contempt. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. assessment of posts' impact on judicial integrity. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. judicial precedents on contempt and criticism allowed. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. guilty of contempt for undermining court authority. (Para 46) |
| 8. final judgment and sentencing directive. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
1. In Rustom Cowasjee Cooper vs Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318 while ordering the initiation of contempt proceedings against the contemnor, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through Hidayatullah, C.J., made the following observations:
“While fair and temperate criticism of this Court or any other Court, even if strong, may not be actionable, attributing improper motives, or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing, directly or indirectly, the functioning
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.
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 made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
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.
A contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable without the Advocate General's consent, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and accountability.
The court found that making unfounded allegations against judges and judicial officers constitutes criminal contempt, undermining public confidence in the justice system.
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
