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 Finds Contemnor Guilty of Scandalizing Judiciary; Suspends 6-Month Sentence Due to Health, with Strict Conditions.</h1> <h3>IN Re. S.K. Sundaram</h3> IN Re. S.K. Sundaram - TMI Issues Involved:1. Contempt of Court Jurisdiction2. Preliminary Objections by the Contemnor3. Appointment of Solicitor General as Amicus4. Merits of the Contempt Case5. Good Faith Defense6. Publication of the Telegram7. Final Decision and SentencingDetailed Analysis:1. Contempt of Court Jurisdiction:The court emphasized that the contempt of court jurisdiction is exercised not to protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. This principle was reiterated from the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. [1998]2SCR795.2. Preliminary Objections by the Contemnor:The contemnor raised three preliminary objections:- The first objection was regarding the initiation of contempt proceedings under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which pertains to civil contempt. This was dismissed as a typographical error corrected to Section 2(c), which pertains to criminal contempt.- The second objection was that contempt proceedings should be initiated by a report from a witness to the contempt, expecting the Chief Justice of India to file the petition personally. The court dismissed this, stating that contempt jurisdiction aims to protect the administration of justice, not individual judges.- The third objection was against the appointment of the Solicitor General as Amicus to assist the court, arguing it was premature. The court found this objection frivolous, noting that the court has plenary power to appoint an amicus at any stage of proceedings.3. Appointment of Solicitor General as Amicus:The court clarified that the power to appoint the Solicitor General or any advocate as Amicus is unrestricted and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. This is supported by Rule 10 of the 'Supreme Court of India Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.'4. Merits of the Contempt Case:The contemnor's actions, including sending a telegraphic communication to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and filing a criminal complaint accusing the CJI of various offenses, were examined under the definition of 'criminal contempt' in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The court found that these actions scandalized and lowered the authority of the judiciary, constituting criminal contempt.5. Good Faith Defense:The contemnor's defense of good faith was scrutinized. The court emphasized that 'good faith' under Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code requires actions to be done with due care and attention. The contemnor's actions lacked due care, as he ignored the President of India's determination of the CJI's age in 1991 and persisted in his accusations without reasonable inquiry.6. Publication of the Telegram:The court rejected the argument that sending a telegram did not amount to publication. It was noted that telegraphic messages are handled by multiple individuals during transmission, constituting publication. Additionally, the contemnor made the telegram public by appending it to his criminal complaint.7. Final Decision and Sentencing:The court found the contemnor guilty of gross criminal contempt, emphasizing the seriousness of vilifying the Chief Justice of India. The contemnor was sentenced to six months of imprisonment. However, considering the contemnor's health condition, the sentence was suspended for one month, with a condition that if the contemnor undertakes not to commit any act of criminal contempt for five years, the suspension would extend. If any act of criminal contempt is committed within this period, the suspension would be revoked, and the contemnor would serve the sentence.Conclusion:The judgment underscores the importance of protecting the administration of justice and the authority of the judiciary from scandalous and malicious actions. The contemnor's actions were found to be in gross contempt, leading to a conditional suspension of the imprisonment sentence, demonstrating the court's balanced approach in considering the contemnor's health while upholding judicial dignity.
TaxTMI 