Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Image
Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Union Government develop a comprehensive policy addressing the construction of feeding rooms and childcare facilities  in public places. This move aims to ensure that nursing mothers and their children can access basic amenities in a dignified and private manner, reinforcing their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. SC Encourages Policy Formulation A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna  and Justice N Kotiswar Singh  highlighted the absence of a structured framework to address this pressing issue. The court advised the Centre to propose a policy that could then be implemented across the states, scheduling the next hearing for December 10, 2024.   The apex court emphasized that before issuing formal directions, it was crucial to understand the Centre’s perspective on implementing the petitioner’s demand for childcare and feedi...
Post a Comment

Delhi HC Convicts Advocate for Contempt: A Serious Breach of Court Decorum

🚨 Delhi HC Convicts Advocate for Contempt: A Serious

 Breach of Court Decorum ⚖️



In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court recently convicted advocate Sanjay Rathod of criminal contempt of court after he used abusive and filthy language against a magistrate at the Karkardooma Court while appearing in an inebriated state. This incident, which occurred on October 30, 2015, highlights the serious consequences of disrespecting the judiciary.


🛑 Courtroom Misconduct: A Breach of Justice

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma found Rathod guilty of criminal contempt, emphasizing that his actions scandalized the court and interfered with the administration of justice. The language used was not only foul but also directed towards a lady judicial officer, making it particularly reprehensible. The court stated that appearing in a drunken state is "unpardonable" and constitutes contempt on the face of the court.


⚖️ Consequences & Sentencing

While the High Court held Rathod guilty, it refrained from imposing an additional sentence as he had already served five months in custody related to a connected FIR. The court concluded that the time already served would be considered sufficient punishment for the criminal contempt.


🔍 The Incident: A Breakdown of Court Decorum

On the day of the incident, Rathod, representing a vehicle owner, began shouting and using abusive language in court after being informed of an adjournment. The magistrate reported the incident to the High Court, leading to the initiation of suo moto contempt proceedings against Rathod. Advocate Vrinda Grover was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in this matter.


💡 Understanding Contempt of Court: Why It Matters

Contempt of court refers to actions that disrespect the authority or dignity of the court, potentially disrupting the judicial process. The Contempt of Courts Act defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes the court or interferes with the administration of justice. Upholding the respect and authority of the judiciary is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the legal system.


👩‍⚖️ What is an Amicus Curiae?

The term "amicus curiae" means "friend of the court." It refers to an impartial advisor, often a legal expert, appointed to assist the court in making informed decisions, particularly in complex or sensitive cases.


The Delhi High Court's ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining decorum and respect in courtrooms, as well as the serious repercussions of failing to do so.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Image
Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...
Read more

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Image
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager  Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores  The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Varun Vashista , a former bank manager accused of embezzling over ₹13 crores from a customer’s account while working at ICICI Bank's Vikas Puri branch. The bail was approved by Justice Amit Mahajan on November 12, 2024, after considering the evidence and facts of the case.   Details of the Case The allegations against Vashista stem from his role as a branch manager. The complainant and her husband had entrusted him with managing their investments, amounting to ₹13.5 crores, between 2019 and 2023.   The complainant discovered in January 2024 that nearly ₹12 crores had been **siphoned off** from her account. Key allegations include:   - Creation of Fake Fixed Deposits: The accused reportedly created fraudulent fixed deposit accounts in the complainant’s name.   - Misappropriation of Funds: Funds were tr...
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the...
Read more