SC sentences 3 people for making scandalous accusations against judges
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has sentenced three people, found guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous and scandalous allegations against two acting judges of the main court, to 3 months in prison noting that it was a concerted effort to virtually retain the judiciary to rescue.
On April 27, the highest court upheld Defender Vijay Kurle, Goa State President and Goa of the Indian Bar Association, Defender of Nilesh Ojha, President of and, National Secretary of the NGO Council, guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous accusations against the judges. .
A bank of judges and heard on May 4, via video conference, the issue of the amount of the sentence in the matter and said there is not a bit of remorse or any appearance of apology on behalf of the contestants.
In view of the scandalous and scandalous accusations directed against the judges of this court and that none of the contenders show remorse, we consider that they cannot be lenient, the bank said in its May 4 order. while noting that none of the defenders of the three contenders was willing to discuss the issue of the sentence.
Therefore, we sentenced the three contestants, namely Vijay Kurle, Nilesh Ojha and Rashid Khan Pathan, to subject them to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of 2,000 rupees, the main court said.
However, the court ordered that, given the pandemic and lockdown conditions of COVID-19, the sentence will take effect after 16 weeks, when all three must surrender to the secretary general of the main court to submit to prison. .
Otherwise, arrest warrants will be issued, the bank said.
On March 27 of last year, the trial court sentenced attorney Mathews J Nedumpara to three months in prison for contempt of court and for trying to intimidate the judges, but suspended the sentence after taking note of the unconditional apology presented. for him.
The same day, the high court issued contempt notices to Kurle, Pathan and Ojha over scandalous charges directed against two of their judges.
In its order of May 4, the superior court said: We have also held in our trial that the complaints were sent by the contestants in order to intimidate the judges who had not yet heard Nedumpara on the question of punishment, so that no action will be taken. it is taken against Nedumpara. Therefore, it is obvious that this is a concerted effort to virtually keep the judiciary to the rescue.
The higher court rejected a request made by Ojha, who had requested the recusal of one of the judges, alleging that the bank is in a hurry to decide the matter.
One of us (Deepak Gupta, J) must resign the post on May 6, 2020 and therefore the matter had to be heard and we see no reason for one of us to challenge. The request is rejected, he said. , while rejecting another request seeking suspension of the matter.
The bank also dealt with the requests submitted by the contenders, who had requested the revocation of the April 27 judgment, alleging that it did not agree with the law established by the higher court.
No withdrawal request can be based on these reasons, and the proper remedy for contenders is to file a petition for review, if advised, the bank said.
In its April 27 verdict, the higher court had said that citizens can criticize the sentences, but no one has the right to attribute motives or question the good faith of the judges.
He had said that any attempt to intimidate judges should be dealt with severely.
The high court had also said that constructive and good faith criticism of any institution, including the judiciary and its sentences, are always welcome and cannot amount to contempt of court.