JODHPUR: The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has dismissed the plea of a trial courtroom’s lady decide, in search of the initiation of contempt continuing in opposition to an advocate over his resentment in a Fb publish that he was left chasing dates however acquired no justice from her courtroom.
A bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana dismissed the Pali ACJM’s plea, reiterating the statutory provision that mere criticism of a judicial order or delay in its supply with out imputing any motive to the decide doesn’t represent an act of contempt in opposition to the courtroom.
Senior Civil Decide-cum-Further Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace Garima Sauda of Sojat in Rajasthan’s Pali district had moved the excessive courtroom in search of the contempt continuing in opposition to advocate Gobardhan Singh for writing a essential Fb publish in opposition to her.
The advocate in his Fb publish had mentioned his plea to the magisterial courtroom for a course to the police for lodging an FIR on his shopper’s criticism acquired 25 adjournments however no choice by it, she added in her plea.
The Fb publish had triggered a string of criticism in opposition to the ACJM after which she had moved the excessive courtroom for hauling up the advocate.
The excessive courtroom, nonetheless, dismissed the trial courtroom decide’s plea, saying the advocate’s act didn’t quantity to the contempt of courtroom in any method beneath the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
“The remarks of the respondent had been within the nature of stating {that a} specific continuing had lingered on earlier than the courtroom for an unduly lengthy interval. That by itself in isolation can’t be seen as contemptuous,” the bench mentioned.
In her plea, the ACJM had additionally asserted that “in relation to a prison case which was pending earlier than her, the respondent advocate had made extremely objectionable feedback on his Fb web page. A number of individuals responded to this remark, which was additionally objectionable and contemptuous.”
The bench, nonetheless, mentioned, “The reference to the remarks of a number of different individuals in response to this publish which can be extremely objectionable wouldn’t render the motion of the current respondent contemptuous until a selected design or plan is proven to be in existence.”
Curiously, the matter had later been transferred to a different courtroom which instantly gave its choice and ordered police to lodge an FIR on the criticism.
