1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Newspaper Held in Contempt for Article Criticizing Court; Apology Accepted, Rule Discharged, No Costs Imposed.</h1> The SC addressed contempt proceedings against a newspaper for an article criticizing the Court's decision and attributing improper motives to judges. The ... - Issues: Contempt of Court through a newspaper article criticizing the Supreme Court's decision and attributing improper motives to the judges.In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed an article published in a newspaper that criticized a decision of the Court and attributed improper motives to the judges. The article was deemed to be a gross contempt of Court as it exceeded the limits of fair criticism and had the potential to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and prestige of the judiciary, highlighting that any perception of judges acting on extraneous considerations could have severe consequences for the justice system. The Court issued a rule against the respondents, which included the Editor, Printer, and Publisher of the newspaper.The respondents, in their affidavits, acknowledged that the article had crossed the boundaries of legitimate criticism by including words that could be construed as reflecting negatively on the Court, thus constituting contempt. They expressed sincere regret and tendered an unreserved apology for their actions. The Court noted that it does not take contempt matters lightly but only intervenes in serious cases where there is a risk of harm to the administration of justice. Citing a precedent from the Privy Council, the Court emphasized that while criticism is permissible, it should not involve imputing improper motives to those involved in the administration of justice. The Court decided to drop further proceedings based on the unconditional apology and the respondents' undertaking to publicize their regret widely. As a result, the Court accepted the apology and discharged the rule without imposing any costs on the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
