//
you're reading...
legal issues

Contempt of court – Giriraj Kishore 96 years- not in a position to respond to the query because of hearing impairment and feeble mental condition. – Apex court held that We are also not oblivious of the fact that the Court was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by contemner No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. But, the fact of the matter is that despite the order passed on 06.05.1994, the notice accompanied by charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far. In this view of the matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96 years and he is not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do not think that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further. – closed the contempt case = CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2 OF 1994 Rajeev Dhawan …… Petitioner Vs. Gulshan Kumar Mahajan & Ors. …… Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41785

Contempt of court –  Giriraj Kishore 96  years- not in a position to respond  to  the

query because of hearing impairment and feeble mental condition. – Apex court held that We are also not oblivious of the  fact  that  the  Court was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed  by  contemner No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to  initiate  the  contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.  But, the fact of the matter  is that despite the order passed  on  06.05.1994,  the  notice  accompanied  by charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far.  In this view of  the matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter  remained  dormant for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96  years  and  he  is  not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do  not  think that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further.  – closed the contempt case =

On 26.03.2014, contemner No.3, Giriraj Kishore was  brought

to the Court on wheel chair by his attendant.

Learned  senior  counsel  for

the  contemner  No.3  reiterated  that  notice   for   personal   appearance

accompanied by charges as directed by the Court on 06.05.1994 has  not  been

served on the contemner.

He also submitted that contemner No.3 is 96  years

and is not able to respond due to severe physical and mental  illness.

The

attendant accompanying contemner No.3, Giriraj Kishore, on the query of  the

Court, informed that contemner No.3 is not in a position to respond  to  the

query because of hearing impairment and feeble mental condition.

11.         One thing is clear from the record that the notice for  personal

appearance accompanied by charges as directed by this  Court  in  the  order

dated 06.05.1994, after cognizance of  contempt  was  taken,  has  not  been

served on contemner No.3 so far.

In a situation such as this, the  question

that arises immediately for our consideration is, whether the  Court  should

direct the service of notice accompanied by charges now.

Dr. Rajeev  Dhawan

vehemently contended that the backdrop to these cases is the destruction  of

the Babri Masjid on 06.12.1992.  According to  him,  this  had  resulted  in

injury to the secular fabric of India.

He submitted that tension  persisted

as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad held a Sansad on 03-04.04.1994  while  hearings

were taking place before this Court.

Contemner  No.  3  made  contemptuous

statements about the Court at that  time  and,  therefore,  matter  of  this

gravity should not be left undecided.

12.         We appreciate the gravity of the subject matter  highlighted  by

Dr. Rajeev Dhawan.

We are also not oblivious of the  fact  that  the  Court

was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed  by  contemner

No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to  initiate  the  contempt

proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

But, the fact of the matter  is

that despite the order passed  on  06.05.1994,  the  notice  accompanied  by

charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far.  

In this view of  the

matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter  remained  dormant

for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96  years  and  he  is  not

able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do  not  think

that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further.

Now,

since contempt proceedings  are  not  being  pursued  further  to  find  out

criminality against the author  (contemner  No.3)  who  made  the  offending

statements, we are of the view that contempt matter does not deserve  to  be

pursued as against contemner Nos. 1 and 2 as well.

The contemner Nos.1  and

2 have also tendered unconditional apology.   Insofar as contemner Nos.4  to

6 are concerned,  the  Court  has  not  yet  taken  cognizance  of  criminal

complaint against them.

In what has been said above, we think the  contempt

matters deserve to be closed.  We order accordingly.

2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41785

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,853,215 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com