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>Court upholds Justice B. K. Choudhuri's appointment in Inquiry Commission. Publications caution urged.</h1> <h3>M.V. Rajwade I.A.S., Dist. Magistrate Versus Dr. S.M. Hassan and Others</h3> The court upheld the validity of the appointment of Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri on the Commission of Inquiry. It determined that the Commission of ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appointment of Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri on the Commission of Inquiry.2. Whether the Commission of Inquiry was a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.3. Whether the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry were judicial proceedings.4. Whether the publications constitute contempt of Court punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Appointment of Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri:The court addressed an argument regarding the validity of the appointment of Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri on the Commission of Inquiry. It was contended that his appointment was 'ultra vires' of the Constitution of India. The court referred to a prior decision in - 'Samaruram Holiram v. B. K. Choudhuri', AIR 1953 Nag 331, which had already settled this issue. The court held that Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri was validly appointed as the sole member of the Commission of Inquiry.2. Whether the Commission of Inquiry was a Court:The court examined whether the Commission of Inquiry constituted a court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The court analyzed Section 4 and Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It was noted that Section 4 only endowed the Commission with certain powers of a Civil Court but did not confer the status of a Court. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 deemed the Commission to be a Civil Court only for specific contempts under the Indian Penal Code. The court concluded that the Commission was not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.3. Whether the Proceedings were Judicial Proceedings:The court considered whether the proceedings before the Commission were judicial proceedings. Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, deems the proceedings before the Commission to be judicial proceedings only for the purposes of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The court concluded that this fiction did not extend beyond the specified purposes, and thus, the proceedings were not judicial in the broader sense required for contempt.4. Whether the Publications Constitute Contempt of Court:Given the conclusions on the previous issues, the court found it unnecessary to delve into whether the publications constituted contempt of court. However, it emphasized the duty of the press and public figures to exercise caution and moderation in their publications, especially in matters of grave public importance. The court appreciated the apologies tendered by most of the respondents, including all the newspapers concerned.Conclusion:The court discharged the rules in all the cases and made no order as to costs. It underscored the importance of responsible journalism and public discourse, urging the press and public figures to act with caution to maintain public confidence in the judicial and governmental authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
