Karnataka HC notice to Centre on PIL challenging Contempt of Courts Act
[ad_1]
Petition has been filed by senior journalists Krishna Prasad and N. Ram, former Minister Arun Shourie and senior advocate Prashant Bhushan
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday ordered subject of notice to the Union authorities on a PIL petition, filed by 4 eminent personalities, challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that makes “scandalising or tends to scandalising courts” as a floor for contempt.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum handed the order on the petitions filed by Krishna Prasad, senior journalist and former Editor of Outlook journal, N. Ram, veteran journalist and former Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, Arun Shourie, former Union Minister, and Prashant Bhushan, senior advocate.
All the 4 petitioners have narrated the proceedings confronted by them below the Contempt of Courts Act at totally different level of time earlier than the High Courts and the apex court docket.
Three of the petitioners, Mr. Ram, Mr. Shourie and Mr. Bhushan, had filed the same petition earlier than the Supreme Court, which in August final 12 months had permitted them to withdraw the petition by giving them liberty to transfer a High Court.
The petitioners have contended of their current petition that Section 2(c)(i) of the Act violates the correct to free speech and expression assured below Article 19(1)(a) and doesn’t quantity to an affordable restriction below Article 19(2).
The Section 2(c)(i) fails the check of overbreadth, abridges the correct to free speech and expression within the absence of tangible and proximate hurt, and it creates a chilling impact on free speech and expression, it has been contended within the petition filed by way of advocate Maitreyi Krishnan.
The offence of “scandalising the court” can’t be thought-about to be coated below the class of “contempt of court” below Article 19(2), the petitioners have contended whereas claiming that even when Section 2(c)(i) have been permissible below the bottom of contempt in Article 19(2), it might be disproportionate and due to this fact unreasonable.
“The offence of ‘scandalising the court’ is rooted in colonial assumptions and objects, which have no place in legal orders committed to democratic constitutionalism and the maintenance of an open robust public sphere,” it has been contended within the petition.
Other provisions
Though the petitioners haven’t challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(c) (ii) and Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act, they’ve contended that guidelines and pointers have to be framed defining the method that superior courts should make use of whereas taking legal contempt motion, preserving in thoughts ideas of pure justice and equity.
In the contempt jurisdiction, the petitioners have contended, the judges might usually be seen to be performing in their very own trigger, thus violating the ideas of pure justice and adversely affecting the general public confidence they search to protect by way of the continuing; and the bench taking suo motu motion on behalf of the Court as a complete, initiates it with out the concurrence of the Full Court.
You have reached your restrict without cost articles this month.
