Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, S.MANU
Mathews J. Nedumpara – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues freedom of speech is violated. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court discusses the reasonable restrictions on free speech. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. court clarifies the application of the act to superior court judges. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. the writ petition is dismissed. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
NITIN JAMDAR, CJ.
1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that Sections 2 (c) (i), 14, 16 and 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act of 1971) are unconstitutional and void. The Petitioner also seeks a declaration that Section 16 of the Act of 1971 is applicable to the judges of the superior courts, and that Section 17 (5) of the Act of 1971 has to be read along with the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
2. We have heard Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, learned Advocate, appearing in person, Mr. S. Biju, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, Dr. K.P. Pradeep, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 – Bar Association, Ms. B. Vinitha, learned Senior Government Pleader, and Mr. Rajit, learned Standing Counsel for the
The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act impose reasonable restrictions on free speech to protect judicial authority, and judges of superior courts are not liable for contempt in their own courts....
Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act not ultra vires Article 14; appeal only for punished contemnor valid as contempt between court-contemnor; informant not party; statutory right, not inherent; equa....
The court established that making defamatory allegations against judges constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, and reasserted the importance of upholding judicial authority.
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.
The judgment emphasizes the need to respect judicial independence and pursue legal remedies for challenging judicial decisions.
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....
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
