It drew the conclusion that the case cannot be said to be called one of wilful and deliberate attempt to disobey and disregard the Court.
Amicus Curiae in the matter, KV Viswanathan had argued that there is no case made out for the review of the judgement, to which Justice Gavai responded that contempt has to have the element of being 'wilful and deliberate'.
To this, the Amicus Curiae argued that the same yardstick was applied and upheld for the other parties that were held guilty. Justice Maheshwari intervened and remarked that preference of candidate with criminal antecedents is subjective in nature and not for the court to draw an inference out of. He also said that in the form, only one name was missing and whether such an error was ommission or deliberate attempt is hard to say. The arena is filled with subjective elements in a decision-making process, which is not for the Court to scrutanize.
The then bench of Justice R F Nariman (now retired) and Justice BR Gavai in RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR vs. SUNIL ARORA 2020 Latest Caselaw 156 SC had imposed cost on the party noting that the published criminal antecedents of candidates were in newspapers of low circulation.
Observing that the same is in contravention to the directions of the Court passed in an order dated February 13, 2020, the Court fined BJP ₹1 lakh.
On similar tunes, INC, RJD, LJP were also fined by the Top Court for partial non-compliance while CPI(M) and NCP were fined for full non-compliance.
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!
0 Comments