|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Sunday, August 27, 2000 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
National
| Previous
Contempt law needs relook: Krishna Iyer
By Our Legal Correspondent
NEW DELHI, AUG. 26. Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, former Supreme Court
Judge, has emphasised the urgent need for taking a fresh look at
the contempt law.
Mr. Iyer, who presided over a lecture meeting here today, felt
that there was a difference between the ``court'' and the
``judge''. The law should seek to protect the court as an
institution, while a judge as an individual could be open to
criticism.
``Can a judge be held for contempt of his own court?. What
happens if the judge comes drunk to his court and demeans the
authority of the court? Can he be held for contempt?,'' he asked.
Mr. Iyer was of the view that judges found to be ``arrogant'' and
``misbehaving'' on the Bench should be condemned. He cited the
example of a newly-appointed Kerala High Court judge passing
remarks in an intemperate language on the competence of a
district judge. It was in this context that the contempt law
needed a fresh look.
Mr. Iyer spoke on the admissibility of truth in contempt cases.
``If a judge is seen taking bribe from a defendant or molesting a
woman, is this admissible and if not why?''.
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, senior advocate, who delivered the Capital
Foundation annual lecture on ``Contempt jurisdiction: exploring
its limits,'' said the contempt law must strike a delicate
balance among individual liberty, right to free speech and the
credibility of the courts. ``Today, scandalising the court and
attacking the courts and judges and their decision are a
worldwide phenomenon,'' he said. Pointing out that the Supreme
Court had come under attack on different occasions, Mr. Venugopal
said, ``there is a gulf in approaches to these cases. This is
because there are no parameters to define contempt''.
Mr. Venugopal said that though the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
was enacted to deal with such cases, it was not binding on the
Supreme Court by virtue of Article 129.
The admissibility of truth as a ground for defence against
contempt needed to be explored. Mr. Venugopal received the annual
trophy from Dr. Vinod Sethi.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : National Previous : MPs protest bid to 'suppress' show | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2000 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|