Apologise for scurrilous remarks against Telangana HC judge: SC to litigant, lawyer
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a suo motu contempt plea when it observed allegations against high court judges were contemptuous and could not be condoned.
New Delhi, Aug 11 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday directed a litigant and his lawyers to tender an unconditional apology to a Telangana High Court judge against whom they levelled 'scurrilous allegations'.
'We cannot permit judges to be put in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations. Judges of the High Courts are constitutional functionaries with the same respect and immunity as Supreme Court judges,' the CJI said.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for a contempt notice, tendered an 'unconditional and unreserved apology' and explained the circumstances in which the statements were made.
The CJI, however, noted such conduct had become a 'disturbing trend' where lawyers and litigants questioned the integrity of judges in politically sensitive matters.
Citing a Constitution bench judgment, the CJI said it was held both litigants and lawyers could be held guilty of contempt for making scandalous allegations against judges.
The bench directed for the already disposed of matter to be reopened in the Telangana High Court and placed before the judge concerned within a week aside from ordering the petitioner before it to furnish an unconditional apology before the judge.
The judge would then decide within a week whether to accept the apology, it added.
The CJI also referred to a recent ruling by a three-judge bench that favoured accepting apologies in such situations over punitive action, saying 'wisdom lies in forgiving rather than punishing'.
On July 29, the apex court issued contempt notices to Peddi Raju, his advocate-on-record Ritesh Patil, and other lawyers involved, refusing to allow them to withdraw the petition and said, 'We cannot permit judges to be out in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against a judge. Here we were trying to protect lawyers.' It was hearing a transfer plea filed by Raju filed through Patil.
'Scurrilous allegations have been made against the sitting judge of Telangana High Court. It has been held (in a judgement) that it is not only a litigant but also a lawyer who signs (the petition) is guilty of contempt of court,' the court said.
While directing for them to furnish an apology, the bench noted it would consider whether to accept it or not.
'We will see if the apology is genuine or not. When we expressed displeasure at the language, liberty was sought to withdraw. We dismissed the request,' it said.
The case stems from the high court's decision to quash a criminal case against the chief minister under the SC/ST Act.
The petitioner later moved the top court with a transfer plea, alleging bias and impropriety on the part of the high court judge. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
For Indians, the American dream is getting more and more out of reach
Written by Savita Patel The Donald Trump administration's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship nationwide was blocked by a fourth court last week. Nevertheless, hundreds and thousands of foreign citizens residing and giving birth in the US remain in a state of uncertainty as a result. Citizenship has been granted to anyone born in the US for over a century, irrespective of their parents' immigration status, as per a legal principle in the US Constitution. The presidential order aims to deny that to children born after February 20 to temporary foreign workers. Within days of the first announcement, several federal judges blocked the order nationwide, which meant the rule could not be enforced until the lawsuits were decided. But the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. As the primary legal case that addresses the merits of Trump's birthright citizenship order continues, on June 27, the Supreme Court curtailed the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions while upholding the ability of plaintiffs to seek a stay through class-action lawsuits. Finally, on July 10, certifying a nationwide class 'comprised only of those deprived of citizenship', a judge in a New Hampshire court indefinitely blocked Trump's order, before District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland did the same on August 7. Caught amidst a flurry of lawsuits and counter-challenges, millions of foreign citizens who live, work and study in the US are uncertain about the nationality of their newborns. Will the US passports being issued to these infants hold if the administration wins the legal battles? Birth certificates issued in the US have information about parents, place and time of birth, but do not mention the nationality of a newborn. Unlike foreign-born immigrants applying for naturalisation or citizenship, there is no formal process or US nationality application for a child born in the country. A US birth location established in the certificate is adequate to apply for an American passport. Even as the lower courts continue to block the thwarting of a constitutional birthright, foreign citizens are wondering if the passports issued to their children might be withdrawn if the US Supreme Court decides to uphold the executive order, as the case makes its way through this year. Historically, laws in the US are not implemented retroactively. Of all foreign US residents, Indians in the US, the second-largest immigrant block, are disproportionately impacted by the challenges to birthright citizenship. Trump's order mentions that children born in the US to lawful permanent residents can receive US citizenship. Indians face the longest queue compared to any other foreign nationality to be granted permanent residency or a green card, an important step in the path to citizenship. The population of Indians in the US has more than doubled in the last two decades, significantly contributed by the large share of H1-B work visas going to them — 72 per cent annually. But the proportion of green cards accorded to them remains at the 7 per cent annual country cap, which has created a decades-long bottleneck. Comparatively, most other nationals receive permanent residence within a year. There are more than 1.1 million Indians in the green card queue. As per the Cato Institute, over 4,00,000 of them face a 134-year wait. If the wait for permanent residency for Indians were at par with immigrants from other countries, most of the Indians in the green card queue would have been granted their citizenship by now and avoided the current uncertainty regarding their US-born children's birthright citizenship. To avail the time window the legal blocking of the order offers and mitigate being stripped of the opportunity due to any potential legal developments, couples are promptly applying for US passports for their newborns but are holding off overseas travel, fearing increased vigilance at the borders. A community so far perceived positively in the US, which refers to itself as a 'model minority' with its highest median income and education levels of all demographic groups, Indians in the US are feeling a tightening immigration landscape. Along with a long wait for green cards, citizenship and the AI-related uncertainty of steady jobs in the tech sector, they are now unsure of the one guarantee: Birthright citizenship for their US-born children. But despite the evolving policies and rising scrutiny, the US continues to be an attractive economic destination for Indians and other foreigners. Career opportunities, education standards, and the lifestyle it offers to families continue to drive hundreds and thousands of Indians to stay on in the US, even though the pursuit of their American dream is becoming more complex. Patel is an author and producer working on diaspora affairs, based in the United States
NDTV
5 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Drastic": Karti Chidambaram Questions If Stray Dog Order Can Be Implemented
New Delhi: The Supreme Court order to send stray dogs to special shelters will be difficult to implement because there is neither funds allocation nor manpower to round up the strays, Congress's Karti Chidambaram told NDTV today. "I understand it (the top court's order) is drastic. Perhaps it can't be implemented in the short time frame. And, but the reason the Supreme Court has given this order is because the policies until now have failed," Mr Chidambaram said. "Whether this drastic order can be actually implemented by the Delhi government, that the Delhi government has to answer for it. But at least this has now triggered a debate. Every stakeholder has come out," he added. Amid a rising wave of dog attacks on children and the elderly people, the top court had ordered yesterday that all strays be shifted to shelters equipped with infrastructure and attendants knowledgeable about dogs. It has sparked a huge debate, with all sectiions of society -- Bollywood to political leaders speaking up. Social media is buzzing and animal activists and dog lovers have hit the streets. "We are not doing this for us, it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved," said a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, terming the stray dog menace in Delhi-NCR as "extremely grim". "For the time being, forget the rules," the court said, declaring that strict action will be taken against any individual or organisation barring the picking up of strays. "Have you seen the classic 'Good, Bad and the Ugly' - when you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk. It is not the time to talk but act. All these so-called animal lovers, will they be able to bring back those children who have given their lives?" the court had said. The court has ordered that dog shelters be created to accommodate around 5,000 stray dogs, and sufficient personnel deployed to sterilise and immunise the canines. The court has given eight weeks for this. "We can't have 6 crore street dogs roaming about in a free state in the streets of India. That's not acceptable," Mr Chidambaram said, pointing out that in no developed country there is a street dog issue "which is also a health and safety issue". "My point is, dogs can't be in a free roaming state. I think that people must be encouraged to adopt dogs. All dogs must have a collar... or perhaps have a chip. They must be vaccinated, they must be neutered and they must be in private spaces and not public spaces," he added.
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court orders strict hygiene rules at court premises to address stray dog risks
The Supreme Court administration on Tuesday directed all food waste within its premises to be discarded only in covered bins, citing rising instances of stray dogs entering court corridors and even lifts. In a circular, the court administration noted an uptick in stray dog presence inside the Supreme Court complex and stressed that uncovered food waste was attracting the canines. The court had issued a similar circular in September 2024 after consultations with civic authorities. (AFP File Photo) 'All leftover food items must be disposed of exclusively in properly covered dustbins. Under no circumstances should food be discarded in open areas or uncovered containers… This measure is crucial to prevent animals from scavenging for food, thereby significantly reducing the risk of bites and maintaining hygiene standards,' the directive stated. To be sure, the court had issued a similar circular in September 2024 after consultations with civic authorities. The renewed instructions came a day after a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ordered civic bodies in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) to round up all stray dogs within eight weeks and house them in dedicated shelters. No captured animal is to be released back on the streets, the court said. Hearing a suo motu petition on the 'alarming and disturbing' rise in stray dog attacks, the bench also directed Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram authorities to set up a helpline to register dog-bite complaints and ensure the animal responsible is picked up within four hours of the incident. The SC also ordered contempt proceedings against anyone obstructing the capture drive while bemoaning the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules that require sterilised dogs to be released in the same locality, calling the rule 'unreasonable and absurd'. 'Whether sterilised or not, the society must feel free and safe. You should not have any stray dog roaming around,' the bench said. Authorities have been told to create shelters for 5,000 dogs within eight weeks and, if necessary, set up a special force to carry out the removal operation.
