Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA
In Reference – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Shrivastava – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
Vishal Mishra, J. - These suo motu contempt proceedings have been initiated against respondent - Manoj Kumar Shrivastava who is an Advocate as per the order by the then Honble Chief Justice dated 10.01.2013.
2. The respondent herein is a petitioner in Writ Petition No.7247 of 2007 seeking a direction to the respondent No.1-Vikram University to quash the appointment of respondent No.2-Dr. Pratishtha Sharma to the post of Lecturer in Language (Lab) and to appoint the petitioner on that post. He was consistently making allegations in writing against Honble Judges at Indore Bench submitting repeated applications/ communications which were prima facie baseless and mischievous.
3. Therefore, in pursuance to the direction issued by the court on 14.09.2012 in Writ Petition No.7247 of 2007 to prepare an index of the complaints made from time to time by the respondent and to be placed before the Honble Chief Justice, along with the record, for orders. Pursuant thereto, the matter was placed before the Honble Chief Justi
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....
Attempt to scandalize or lower authority of Court falls under definition of ‘criminal contempt’.
Allegations undermining judicial authority and disrupting court proceedings constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Allegations of bias and pre-judgement against judges, made with the intent to intimidate them, constitute criminal contempt of court.
The court affirmed that public criticisms and unfounded allegations against judges constitute contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural....
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.