https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168465 A scurrilous pamphlet imputing dishonesty, bias, and improper conduct to Supreme Court judges was treated as contempt because, read as a whole, it had the natural tendency to lower the authority of the Court and undermine public confidence in justice. Freedom of speech under Article 19(2) was held subject to reasonable restrictions in contempt law, and the American approach was rejected. Protections based on Article 105(2) and the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956 were found inapplicable because the material was not a publication under parliamentary authority. Procedural objections were rejected, and the apology was not accepted as sufficient in light of the deliberate and grave nature of the attack. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168465 A scurrilous pamphlet imputing dishonesty, bias, and improper conduct to Supreme Court judges was treated as contempt because, read as a whole, it had the natural tendency to lower the authority of the Court and undermine public confidence in justice. Freedom of speech under Article 19(2) was held subject to reasonable restrictions in contempt law, and the American approach was rejected. Protections based on Article 105(2) and the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1956 were found inapplicable because the material was not a publication under parliamentary authority. Procedural objections were rejected, and the apology was not accepted as sufficient in light of the deliberate and grave nature of the attack. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168465