SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 944

DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
TEHSEEN POONAWALLA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


ORDER

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Ms Indira Jaising has moved a Miscellaneous Application seeking the following reliefs :

“a) Issue appropriate order or direction expunging/deleting the remarks made against the counsel for present intervenor/applicant herein that the conduct of the counsel/applicant herein amounted to contempt or prima facie contempt of court, namely the following :

“74. The present case is indeed a case in point. Repeatedly, counsel for the petitioners and intervenors have attempted to inform the court that they have no personal agenda and that they have instituted these proceedings to protect judicial independence. An aura of good faith has been sought to be created by submitting that the true purpose of seeking an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the death of Judge Loya is to protect the district judiciary(…)”

“75.[…] Ms Jaising has joined the fray by requesting that this court to issue contempt notices to the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court…”

“76. […] The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt…”

“78. [...] The conduct of the petitioners









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top