Latest news with #1971Act
Hindustan Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC frames contempt charges against Punjab director rural devp
The Punjab and Haryana high court has framed contempt of court charges against Punjab director rural development, Uma Shankar Gupta, in a case of delay in the promotion of an employee. The high court bench of justice Harkesh Manuja while seeking a response from Gupta posted the matter for his response on May 22 while ordering that 'charges under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are ordered to be framed against Mr Uma Shankar Gupta, IAS, Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab.' Section 10 deals with the power of HC to initiate contempt proceedings and Section 12 with punishment for the offence under the 1971 Act. If convicted, he may be fined up to ₹2,000 or jailed for six months or both. The plea was from one Hardeep Singh, a panchayat secretary. He joined the post in 1994. In 2012, many of his colleagues especially those juniors to him were promoted. But his case was kept pending for want of a report from the vigilance department. A petition was filed by him disputing the seniority list for promotion, which was disposed of in April 2024 by the court with a direction that he would approach the department and his representation would be decided within three months. After the order was not complied with, he filed a contempt petition in January 2025, which was also disposed of on February 27 with the direction that he would appear before the department on March 3 with an undertaking that no enquiry was pending against him. The court also ordered that if needful is not done, a fine of ₹50,000 would be imposed on the officers concerned, which would be recovered from them. When the order was still not complied with, another application was moved by the petitioner on April 2. The HC ordered the attachment of the salaries of concerned officers till the time of compliance. It was after this that the rural development department passed an order on May 13, granting the petitioner promotion from January 2025 and the court was informed on May 14. Appalled by the department's promotion order, the court said that for the past 13 years, neither any report was obtained from the vigilance by the department nor even any letter/correspondence/complaint was ever sent by the vigilance against the petitioner still he has been promoted as panchayat officer with effect from January 2025. '… (the order) is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and selective especially, when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner towards the delay for consideration of his promotion as the said process was kept in abeyance only for the reasons that his record was not traceable in the department,' the court said while framing charges under contempt of court Act against Gupta. The court further added that for the past 13 years, the department has not been able to fix the responsibility of any of the officials about the non-availability of the petitioner's service record and still he has not been given benefit with effect from when he was eligible.
Hindustan Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's remarks on judiciary next week
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition seeking contempt of court action against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey for his controversial comments on the apex court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). A bench headed by justice Bhushan R Gavai, who is in line to be the next CJI, directed the petition to be listed next week after advocate Narendra Mishra mentioned the case. Advocate Mishra said that while letters are pending with Attorney General for seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt against Dubey, no action was forthcoming even as the statements against the CJI and the top court were getting widely circulated. Incidentally, Mishra had approached the justice Gavai-led bench on Monday with the same request when he was asked to approach AG for consent. Two lawyers — Anas Tanwir and Shiv Kumar Tripathi — had sought AG's consent on Saturday soon after Dubey made the comments while speaking to news agencies. For filing any petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the Supreme Court, Section 15(1)(b) of the 1971 Act along with the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 or the 1975 Rules require prior consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. The relevant rule - Rule 3(c) of the 1975 Rules provides that either the court can take it up suo motu or a petition can be maintained directly by the AG or SG or by a private person after taking AG/SG consent. Dubey on Saturday triggered a row, saying, 'CJI Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for the civil wars taking place in the country' and that 'the Supreme Court is taking the country towards anarchy'. His outrage was directed against the apex court's April 8 decision in a petition filed by Tamil Nadu government against the action of TN Governor RN Ravi to refer 10 bills for Presidental assent after it was re-validated by the legislature for a second time. The top court found the governor's action to be unconstitutional and set timelines asking the Governor to decide on bills within three months. The court also ordered that if bills are referred to President for assent, the same should be decided by the latter in three months. Dubey cited Article 368 of the Constitution and said that law-making is the job of Parliament while the Supreme Court is only meant to interpret laws. Dubey also cast aspersion on the impartiality of the judiciary by questioning the court's critical observations on the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act's dilution of the 'Waqf by user' provision. Advocate Mishra said, 'The comments (of Dubey) are hurting the court, and the government is not taking any action. The video is viral all over the country and there is no action on the letters written to Attorney General. Mishra also sought orders directing the removal of videos of Dubey's comments from social media platforms. Advocate Tanwir alleged that Dubey's remarks were 'grossly scandalous', 'misleading' and aimed at lowering the dignity and authority of the court. He said, 'These remarks are not only factually incorrect but are also intended to scandalise the Supreme Court, erode public trust, and incite communal distrust in judiciary's impartiality, all of which clearly fall within the meaning of criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c)(i) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.' Soon after Dubey's remarks courted controversy, BJP president JP Nadda distanced himself from the comments and warned the Jharkhand MP from further making such statements. Earlier, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar had described Article 142 of the Constitution – which gives Supreme Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice – as a 'nuclear weapon' used by the judiciary against democratic forces. He also criticised the top court for acting as 'super Parliament' for its directions in the TN case.
