The Contempt of Courts Act‚ 1971 The Contempt of Courts Act‚ 1971 has been enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. Punishment for contempt affects two important fundamental rights of the citizens‚ namely‚ the right to personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression. According to the provisions of this Act‚ contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Civil contempt means
Premium Judge Advertising Contempt of court
CONTEMPT OF COURT Introduction: In a democracy people should have right to criticize judges. The purpose of should not be to upheld the majesty and dignity of the court but only to enable it to function. Anything that curtails or impairs the freedom of limits of the judicial proceedings must of necessity result in hampering of the administration of Law and in interfering with the due course of justice. This necessarily constitutes contempt of court. Oswald defines contempt to be constituted by
Premium Judge Contempt of court Narmada Bachao Andolan
Contempt is generally defined as an act of disobedience to an order of a court‚ or an act of disrespect of a court. A client’s failure to comply with a restraining order‚ a visitation order or an injunction in any kind of action may result in a finding of contempt of court‚ no matter the intention. The court has the power to punish neglection‚ violation of duty‚ or any other misconduct. Also a non-payment of a sum of money‚ ordered by the court to be paid can lead to contempt of court. Another
Premium Judge Human rights Common law
CHAPTER – IV THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT‚ 1971: A CRITIQUE 1.1 INTRODUCTION After discussing concept‚ historical background and constitutional aspect in the proceeding chapters‚ an attempt has been made in this chapter to discuss in detail the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act‚ 1971. Rule of Law is the basic principle of governance of any civilized and democratic society. The principle asserts supremacy of law bringing under its purview everyone‚ individuals and institutions at par
Premium Common law Judge Court
Why detention of Subrata Roy is illegal per se Execution of orders is not possible in contempt proceedings. It is a strong hunch that the Supreme Court will most likely release Subrata Roy tomorrow even though he will have no “acceptable proposal” to give. Whether it happens and how the law will get interpreted for this purpose is left to be seen. Irrespective of that‚ the actual order for detention of Roy and the other Sahara directors passed on 4th March‚ 2014 is short on acceptable jurisprudence
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Judge
In a landmark judgment of the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India‚[2] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also. The constitution of India does not specifically mention the freedom of press. Freedom of press is implied from the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thus the press is subject to the restrictions
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Judge First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Thompson be held in contempt of court under Michigan law for the statements he made in a letter sent to the media and Judge Friedman two days after rejecting Thompson’s action initiated against Take-Two in an effort to stop the release of the video game "Bully?" II. Under the Michigan statute‚ should the game "Bully" be held a public nuisance harmful to public health‚ affecting public morals? BRIEF ANSWERS I. Yes. Jack Thompson should be held in contempt of court. Court proceedings are not
Premium Contempt of court Judge Court
Sethi‚ G.B. Pattanaik‚ J.J. JURISDICTION – The power of the Supreme Court to take case suo moto and to punish for its own contempt has been granted by Article 129 of the Indian Constitution. FACTS IN ISSUE The facts of the case‚ which are not seriously disputed‚ are that an organisation‚ namely‚ Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a petition u/Art. 32 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No. 319 of 1994 in this Court. The petitioner was a movement or andolan‚ whose leaders and members were
Premium Judge Judge Narmada Bachao Andolan
This Software is Licensed to: K C LAW COLLEGE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (L.B.) SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V/S UNION OF INDIA Date of Decision: 17 April 1998 Citation: 1998 LawSuit(SC) 452 Hon’ble Judges: S C Agrawal‚ G N Ray‚ A S Anand‚ S P Bharucha‚ S Rajendra Babu Appeal Type: Writ Petition (C) Appeal No: 200 of 1995 Subject: Civil‚ Constitution Head Note: ADVOCATES ACT‚ 19 Power of the Supreme Court to determine if advocate was guilty of ’professional misconduct’ Section 38 -- Constitution
Premium Common law Judge Contempt of court
COPYRIGHT Laws and regulations govern every profession whether they are formally enacted as laws or accepted as conventions‚ thus journalism is no exception‚ there are many minefields through which a media professional must walk‚ in the course of his work‚ and unless he equips himself with a minesweeper to detect the dangerous explosives buried in the ground tto ambush him‚ he is liable to sustain serious injuries. The laws governing journalism‚ have been designed to prevent invasion of individual’s
Premium Contempt of court Copyright Copyright infringement