Filing of Defamation and Contempt of Court cases - The Indian Judicial system - FAQ

Filing of Defamation and Contempt of Court cases - The Indian Judicial system - FAQ 

A Panel discussion on Legal Point  programme on LOKSABHA TV telecasted on 6th January 2014

Panelists:-
1. Mr. Murari Tiwari, Secy Delhi Bar Council
2. Mr. Urmalesh, Senior Writer- Columnists
3. Mr. R. N. Vats, Presidenet Delhi Bar Association
4. Dr. N. K. Jha Dean, Professor & Dean, School of Social Sciences & International Studies
Anchor - Mr. Suraj Mohan Jha

The discussions focuses on various common scenarios as to How, When and Where Defamation and Contempt of court cases can be filed, including False implication in ipc 498a  (dowry Harassment cases), Gender Biased laws, on Lawyers, on Media etc.

Below is the link to the post on the details of Defamation petition filed by a Retd SC Judge seeking to restrain them from publishing news pertaining to the law intern’s allegation of sexual harassment (except judicial orders) and claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 5 crore.

Delhi HC grants temporary relief to J. Swatanter Kumar; Restraint on publishing details of allegations, use of J. Kumar's photograph

Part 1 of 2




Part 2 of 2

Honesty can’t be faked

Honesty can’t be faked

November 29, 2010   3:18:27 AM

Joginder Singh

The Government has grievously erred in the appointment of PJ Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner. It must make amends without delay

The Supreme Court of India, while hearing two separate though connected cases of public interest litigation, has raised a pertinent question by asking as to how the newly-appointed Central Vigilance Commissioner could fulfill his responsibilities since he is still an accused in a criminal case relating to irregularities in the import of palm oil. The Supreme Court has pointed out that the Central Vigilance Commissioner is supposed to order investigations into complaints of corruption received by the Commission he heads, the appellate anti-corruption body which supervises the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The accused in such complaints could well say: “You cannot deal with these as you are an accused in a criminal case yourself.”

According to the two PILs, the Union Government had ignored the Supreme Court’s guidelines for the appointment of the CVC. Under these guidelines, a three-member committee is supposed to select the CVC from a panel of civil servants with impeccable integrity and outstanding career records. The Supreme Court wanted to know whether this criterion had been followed. It also asked the Government whether the charge sheet against Mr PJ Thomas had been consistently ignored over the last 10 years during which time he was promoted several times — from being Food Secretary in Kerala he became Telecom Secretary and Secretary in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs before being appointed CVC. The Supreme Court said, “We are not against the person but we are on his office... We want to know if he, being an accused, is able to function at this sensitive post.” The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau of Kerala had filed the charge sheet in the palm oil import scam as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act after securing proper sanction.

The Attorney-General later commented that if the criterion of ‘impeccable integrity’ were to be strictly applied then even the appointments of several judges and others holding constitutional office would be “subject to scrutiny and challenged”. The Attorney-General, perhaps, may not be aware that for every worthwhile appointment, including that of the judges, a vigilance clearance is required. The appointment of Chief Vigilance Officers of Government departments and public sector undertakings is cleared by the CVC after obtaining necessary reports from the CBI and other agencies. In fact, the Chief Justice of India rammed home the point by saying that under service rules, someone with a charge sheet pending against him would not even be considered for a promotion.

There is more than what meets the eye in all high profile appointments by the Government irrespective of the party in power. Rulers who abide by ethics do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly; those who are unscrupulous constantly seek a way around laws. The top bureaucrats — the Cabinet Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Principal Secretary — are all from Kerala. A phone call or an e-mail from any of them would have fetched them the latest information about the status of the case against Mr Thomas. The officer cannot be faulted for the munificence of the Government, but his colleagues who suppressed facts must share the blame. Fellow bureaucrats have got him a post-retirement job, that too with the status of a Supreme Court judge, that will keep him in comfort at taxpayers’ expense for another five years.

Indeed, the Union and the State Governments run an employment exchange for retired officers who have not only toed the line laid down by their political bosses but also, when asked to bend, have chosen to crawl. There are more than 400 committees and commissions which are practically reserved for retired officers. This is strange as most of the working officers in senior positions do not have even half-an-hour of work. Sometime back I ran into a Secretary to the Government and asked him was work. He said since he did not toe the line of his Minister the post of OSD was created for him. He defined OSD not as Officer on Special Duty but Officer in Search of Duty.

The only condition of post-retirement employment is that the bureaucrat should not only be flexible but also pliable. It is said in jest that civil servants lose a vertebra of their backbone for every one or two years of their service. By the time they retire, barring honourable exceptions, most of them become spineless wonders. They do so in the interest of their survival and occupying good posts till they kick the bucket. Nobody doubts the integrity of the Prime Minister, but he seems to have an incredible amount of faith in a corrupt bureaucracy which does not place all the facts before him. Why should the Government try to justify the unjustifiable? It has blundered in the appointment of the CVC.

Good governance requires hard work and the courage to take decisions. You do not need Solomon’s wisdom to realize that our actions produce reactions. When the Government has fixed the retirement age for bureaucrats at 60, why should some be favoured with extensions in service for five years by being appointed to various commissions or constitutional posts? The Government swears by the rule of law and fairplay but more often than not it treats some as more equal than others.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the law of the land still remains alive and is periodically upheld as above all, no matter how powerful the individuals or institutions concerned may be. The Government must realize that there is no room for legal hair splitting on the pertinent questions raised by the Supreme Court in the case pertaining to the appointment of the CVC in violation of all norms and guidelines. There really should be no need to remind the Prime Minister, whose integrity is unimpeachable and who has a high sense of probity that governance is largely about being honest and speaking the truth, no matter how bitter it may be. Given the fact that the Prime Minister is widely seen as an honest individual, he should take the initiative in rectifying the blunder made by his Government in the appointment of Mr Thomas as the CVC. He is clearly not the right choice for the job; he should be removed and due diligence must be applied in finding an officer to replace him. There is no shortage of those who fit the bill and have an unblemished record. What Carlyle said for individuals is equally applicable to the Government: Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure there is one less rascal in the world.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/299756/Honesty-can%E2%80%99t-be-faked.html

Delhi HC orders contempt case against father of girl for resiling from mutual consent divorce agreement of daughter after extorting the agreed amount

The Delhi High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the father of a Germany-based woman for backing out from a mutual consent divorce agreement in exchange of Rs 12 lakh. In March 2010, the woman had moved the Delhi High Court against her husband, charging him with domestic violence.

Her Delhi-based father filed a case of domestic violence and dowry demand against his bed-ridden daughter's husband.

Later, she agreed for a mutual-consent divorce for Rs 12 lakh.

Sunny and Sheila (names changed) married in 2002 in Delhi. During her stay in Germany, Sheila developed multiple sclerosis.

In 2008, she filed cases in Germany against her husband.

At present, the couple lives separately in Germany.

Prabhjit Jauhar, counsel for Sunny, in his petition said: "Sheila registered false complainants with the German court. Later German investigative authorities found that those complaints were false."

Jauhar told the court that Sheila was not summoned, as the German court noted she was suffering from an acute disease.

In March 2010, Sheila, through her father, informed the Delhi High Court's Mediation Conciliation Centre, that a divorce by mutual consent should be agreed upon for a sum of R12 lakh. She also gave her consent to quash the FIR against her husband.

However on November 1, Sheila's father said he was not willing to comply with the terms of agreement signed in March.

"It is a clear breach of undertaking given to the court and amounts to contempt," Jauhar submitted in court.

Justice GS Sistani said: "Respondent (father of the woman) has willfully violated the terms of settlement agreed upon. Issue notice to show cause, as to why contempt proceedings should be not initiated."

Sunny, in his petition, alleged that he has already deposited R12 lakh with the registry department of the High Court in March 2010.

The court has directed Sheila's father to be personally present in court on the next date of hearing.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/HC-orders-contempt-case-against-man/Article1-627757.aspx

Lower courts can’t hear contempt proceedings: Delhi HC

Lower courts can’t hear contempt proceedings: Delhi HC

Aug 05, 2010 at 1801 hrs IST

New Delhi The Delhi High Court has said lower courts have no power to prosecute a person for contempt of court.

Enumerating the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, Justice S N Dhingra said only higher courts can take cognisance of contempt committed by a person against lower judiciary.

“A perusal of provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act would show that a Court subordinate to High Court has no powers to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. Under the Act, the High Court alone can take cognizance of an alleged contempt having been committed in respect of subordinate Courts,” the court said.

The Court said the decision of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in issuing a notice to two senior police officers for contempt proceedings was contrary to law.

“I find that the learned ACMM grossly exceeded his powers in issuing show cause notice as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against the investigating officer and ACP,” the court said.

The ACMM had issued notices to two officials of Delhi Police after holding that their conduct lowered the reputation of the lower court.

Setting aside the order, the High Court said the alleged contemptuous conduct of the police officers should have brought to its notice and it would have then taken an appropriate action against them.

“A subordinate court is supposed to send a reference of the matter to the High Court. A subordinate court cannot itself assume jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and issue show cause notice as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated,” the court said.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lower-courts-can-t-hear-contempt-proceedings--HC/656510/

Media entitled to fair criticism of court judgment: SC

Media entitled to fair criticism of court judgment: SC

2/8/2010

02.08.2010 (UNI) The Supreme Court has said that media is entitled to fair criticism of the judgement delivered by the court and such criticism is part of the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

A bench comprising Justices J M Panchal and A K Patnaik in their judgement noted ‘national interest requires that all criticism of the judiciary must be strictly rational and sober and proceed from the highest motive without being coloured by any partisan spirit or tactics.’ ‘There is no manner of doubt that freedom of expressions contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is available to the press and to criticise a judgement fairly albeit fiercely is no crime but a necessary right,’ the bench said.

The apex court, while dropping contempt of court proceedings against Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal, leading English daily The Times of India and its former Supreme Court correspondent Rakesh Bhatnagar for criticising corruption in judiciary, further said ‘a fair and reasonable criticism of a judgement which is a public document or which is a public act of a judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt’.

In fact, such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one, much less judges, can claim infallibility.
The message examined the evils prevailing in the judicial system and was written with an object to achieve maintenance of purity in the administration of justice and the message was exposition of Mr Sibal’s ideology.

Contempt of court proceedings were initiated against Mr Sibal and others for an article published in the leading English daily from Delhi on April 16, 1995 in which Mr Sibal, who was a senior advocate at that time, is alleged to have made a frontal attack on the corruption in judiciary.

The 27-page judgement has been written by Justice Panchal for the bench. UNI

 

http://www.indlawnews.com/NewsDisplay.aspx?6b7be5ed-eedf-41b4-a1f7-0939308fffdf