Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
A. Shankar – Appellant
Versus
R. S. Bharathi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pleased to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for scandalizing the office of a Judge of this Court in particular and the High Court as an institution in general and for interfering with the administration of justice by attributing bias and impure motives to the orders of this this Court.
As a prelude, we remind, on May 18, 1951, when the provisional Parliament of India (the body that succeeded and had mostly the same composition as been constituent assembly) was debating the first constitutional (Amendment Bill). Dr.B.R.Ambedkar discussed the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madras vs. Chapakam Dorairajan 1951 AIR 226 and Venkataramana vs. the State of Madras 1966 AIR 1089 and called them “utterly unsatisfactory”. The house chided him for disparaging the Apex Court and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar responded:
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.
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
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 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 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....
The court found that making unfounded allegations against judges and judicial officers constitutes criminal contempt, undermining public confidence in the justice system.
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
The judgment emphasizes the need to respect judicial independence and pursue legal remedies for challenging judicial decisions.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
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
Listen Article