The Delhi High Court has said that it is not acceptable for parties to cast aspersions on the integrity of judge on account of facing 'anxiety' during the trial.
The single-judge bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora while accepted the 'unconditional apology' tendered by the litigant who represented himself in case filed by his former-wife and during the course of it, made unceremonious remark against the presiding Judge.
The Court in view of the fact that the trial is pending since 2018, deemed it appropriate to pass the order, inter-alia taking in account the fact that the respondent is a single-father. It, however imposed a cost of ₹5,000/-.
"The present contempt proceedings have been pending since 2016 and the criminal trial as well remained pending until 24.07.2018. Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae, as well as the fact that the Respondent is a single father, who is looking after his five children, this Court deems it appropriate to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the Respondent, with a warning to him to exercise restraint and refrain from casting any aspersion on the Court," the Court observed.
It was further directed that if in future the Respondent similarly casts aspersion on the integrity of the Court, in any legal proceedings where he is a party, the record of the present contempt petition shall be read in evidence and the subsequent conduct will be considered as an aggravated contempt of the Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Counsel for Respondent has contended that the Court may consider that the Respondent is a layman without any formal education of law and owing to the fact that he was defending his case, in person, unfortunately used intemperate language in the application. He submitted that considering that the personal liberty of the Respondent was at stake in the said criminal trial, he may have been anxious and fell in error.
Urging the Court to take a lenient view in the matter, the Counsel submitted that he has conferred with the Respondent in the past five years, since his initial appointment as an Amicus Curiae and has been given to understand that the Respondent herein is genuinely apologetic for the events which transpired before the ASJ in 2016.
The Counsel requested that the Court may refrain from awarding jail term in view of the 'unconditional apology' in which the respondent has clarified that the he never intended to undermine the majesty of the Court.
CASE TITLE: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION vs REHMAN AFTAB ALAM
CASE DETAILS: CCP(REF) 4/2016
CORAM: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments