https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195253 Reckless imputations in pleadings alleging bias, fabrication of proceedings, misconduct, and improper motives against a judge or the Court were treated as criminal contempt because they were scurrilous attacks tending to scandalise the Court and undermine public confidence in judicial administration. The Court applied the tendency-and-effect test and held that proof of actual intent to obstruct justice was unnecessary. Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 did not protect the contemnor because the statements were neither a fair report of proceedings nor fair, temperate criticism of a judicial act. Persistent refusal to retract warranted custodial punishment. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:08:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195253 Reckless imputations in pleadings alleging bias, fabrication of proceedings, misconduct, and improper motives against a judge or the Court were treated as criminal contempt because they were scurrilous attacks tending to scandalise the Court and undermine public confidence in judicial administration. The Court applied the tendency-and-effect test and held that proof of actual intent to obstruct justice was unnecessary. Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 did not protect the contemnor because the statements were neither a fair report of proceedings nor fair, temperate criticism of a judicial act. Persistent refusal to retract warranted custodial punishment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195253