Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Fair reporting of court proceedings won't amount to contempt: Bench

Fair reporting of court proceedings won't amount to contempt: Bench

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Nov 14, 2011   modified Modified on Nov 14, 2011
-The Hindu
 
Greater the power to punish for contempt, higher the responsibility

Fair reporting of court proceedings and fair comments on the legal issues do not amount to contempt, the Supreme Court has ruled.

“The power to punish for contempt is inherent in courts of record and described as a necessary incident to every court of justice. The power is an alienable attribute of court and inheres in every court of record. This power, though inherent to the High Court, is given a constitutional status by Article 215,” said a Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad.

Writing the judgment, Justice Prasad said: “It [contempt power] is to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process. Rule of law is the basic rule of governance of any civilised democratic polity. It is only through the courts that rule of law unfolds its contours and establishes its concept.”

For the judiciary to discharge its obligations effectively and true to the spirit with which it was sacredly entrusted with the task, constitutional courts had been given the power to punish for contempt. But the greater the power, the higher the responsibility, said the Bench.

In the instant case, H.G. Rangangoud was aggrieved by the Karnataka High Court order initiating contempt proceedings suo motu , taking a serious view of a communication sent by the State government to the Centre for grant of a mining lease in favour of a company. While the State recommended grant of the lease in favour of the appellant, the Centre issued a notification reserving the area of iron ore deposits for exploitation by the State Trading Corporation and returned the recommendation.

A single judge of the High Court, however, quashed the notification. Even as a writ appeal was pending before a Division Bench, the State again sent a communication to the Centre for grant of the mining lease to the appellant. The Bench construed this as interference with the due course of judicial process and initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant and K. Jayachandra, then Under Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries.

Allowing the appeal against this order, the Supreme Court said: “Mere filing of the representation and making a recommendation thereon in no way prejudice or interfere, or tend to interfere, with the due course of any judicial proceeding. It is criminal contempt to voice opinion on a case pending in court as that would seem to influence the outcome of the matter and to prejudice the parties. However, we hasten to add that fair reporting of court proceedings and fair comments on the legal issues do not amount to contempt.”

Holding that initiating contempt proceedings against the appellant and Mr. Jayachandra was not just and appropriate, and was an abuse of the process of the court, the Bench set aside the order.


Th Hindu, 15 November, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2628263.ece


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close