TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Contemner Convicted for Contempt in Defamation Case: Jail Time and Fine</h1> <h3>National Textile Workers Union Versus PR. Ramakrishnan & others</h3> The court found the contemner guilty of contempt for making defamatory statements against High Court judges and failing to comply with court orders. ... Contempt of Court - Held that:- he conduct of the contemner constitutes serious interference with the course of justice. He has exhibited a dogged determination to pursue the four Judges of the High Court, come what may. He is not sorry for his ways. He is sorry that he was even apparently sorry. Perhaps, having charged his price, he has to play to the tune of his masters. Very often, contemners are so contemptible that it is useless to take any serious notice of their conduct. We are compelled to take action in this case because nothing else will stop this systematic campaign of vilification against the defenceless Judges of the High Court. Thus convict the contemner under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. He shall be taken in custody forthwith. Issues:Contempt of court for making defamatory allegations against High Court judges and failing to comply with court orders.Analysis:The judgment deals with a case of contempt of court arising from defamatory statements made by the contemner against High Court judges. The contemner, after being issued a notice for contempt, submitted a written apology to the court, expressing regret for the articles published in his journals. However, the apology was deemed insincere as the contemner continued to publish defamatory content shortly after. The court found that the contemner's actions interfered with the administration of justice, aiming to influence judicial decisions in his favor. Despite being given multiple opportunities to rectify his conduct, the contemner persisted in his campaign of vilification against the judges. The court highlighted that the contemner's behavior was not in pursuit of justice but rather a malicious attempt to undermine the judiciary.Furthermore, the contemner's subsequent affidavit, where he reiterated his intention to prove the truth of his allegations against the judges, was dismissed by the court as lacking credibility. The court emphasized that the contemner's actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for the judiciary and a persistent refusal to acknowledge his wrongdoing. The contemner's attempt to justify his conduct by citing past experiences and claiming to be a freedom fighter was deemed irrelevant to the contempt proceedings.Ultimately, the court convicted the contemner under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentencing him to three months of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000. The court emphasized the seriousness of the contemner's actions and the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The judgment concluded by directing the contemner to be taken into custody immediately, with a provision for his physical well-being if he had any ailments, while also alluding to the responsibility of those influencing his actions to care for his mental state.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
