https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293795 Civil contempt requires clear proof of wilful disobedience of a definite and binding order, and that threshold was not met because the restraint order was directed at political parties, not specifically at the official respondents, and the record did not show deliberate defiance. Criminal contempt requires legally admissible proof beyond reasonable doubt of the actual scandalising words, and that threshold was also not met because the claim rested on newspaper reports and an edited telecast without reliable primary evidence of the full speech. The contempt allegations therefore failed against all respondents and the petitions were dismissed. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:47:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293795 Civil contempt requires clear proof of wilful disobedience of a definite and binding order, and that threshold was not met because the restraint order was directed at political parties, not specifically at the official respondents, and the record did not show deliberate defiance. Criminal contempt requires legally admissible proof beyond reasonable doubt of the actual scandalising words, and that threshold was also not met because the claim rested on newspaper reports and an edited telecast without reliable primary evidence of the full speech. The contempt allegations therefore failed against all respondents and the petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293795