TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Chief Minister found guilty of contempt, sentenced to imprisonment and fine for disobeying court orders</h1> The court found the Chief Minister guilty of contempt for disobeying court orders related to construction activities on disputed land. The Chief Minister ... - Issues Involved:1. Amenability of the State and its Ministers to contempt proceedings for disobedience of judicial pronouncements.2. Nature of the undertaking given by the Chief Minister before the National Integration Council.3. Alleged construction activities on the disputed land in violation of court orders.4. Responsibility and liability of the State Government and Chief Minister for the alleged contempt.Detailed Analysis:1. Amenability of the State and its Ministers to Contempt Proceedings:The petitions raised the issue of whether the State and its Ministers could be proceeded against for contempt for failing to obey judicial pronouncements. The proceedings were linked to the demolition of the 'Ram Janam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid' structure on December 6, 1992, which resulted in significant loss of life and property. The court emphasized that the executive branch of the government bears a grave responsibility for upholding and obeying judicial orders. The judgment highlighted the principle that in a government of laws, no one is above the law, and every official is subject to the ordinary law and jurisdiction of the courts.2. Nature of the Undertaking Given by the Chief Minister:The court examined whether the undertaking given by the Chief Minister before the National Integration Council was a personal undertaking or on behalf of the U.P. Government. The Chief Minister had assured the Council that the State would protect the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid structures and comply with court orders regarding land acquisition proceedings. The court concluded that the undertaking was both personal and on behalf of the State Government, emphasizing that there is no immunity for any government authority from the consequences of disobedience of court orders.3. Alleged Construction Activities in Violation of Court Orders:The court addressed the allegations that substantial construction work was carried out on the disputed land in Ayodhya in violation of court orders. The defense claimed that the constructions were initially for leveling operations for pilgrims, but later, a large congregation of Sadhus undertook the construction of a platform. The court found that there was massive construction involving tonnes of cement and concrete, which was carried out with construction machinery. The evidence, including reports from the Chief Engineer and an Expert Committee, confirmed that substantial work had been done, which violated the court's orders.4. Responsibility and Liability of the State Government and Chief Minister:The court examined whether the construction activities were carried out by the State Government or with its connivance. The court found that the State Government failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the inflow of construction materials and equipment to the site, indicating a lack of effort to prevent the violation of court orders. The Chief Minister's assurance to the National Integration Council was found to be binding, and the court held that the Chief Minister and the State Government were liable for contempt. The judgment emphasized that the rule of law must be upheld, and any attempt to achieve solutions through strength of numbers rather than the law would subvert fundamental values and weaken public faith in constitutional institutions.Conclusion:The court convicted the Chief Minister of contempt of court for willful disobedience of court orders and sentenced him to a token imprisonment of one day and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The judgment underscored the importance of respecting judicial orders and maintaining the rule of law in a pluralist society. The contempt petitions were partly disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
