9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order dated 30.9.2007 by respondents 1 to 5. 2. Criminal contempt by respondent No. 6 under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Willful Disobedience of the Supreme Court's Order Dated 30.9.2007 by Respondents 1 to 5: - Background Facts: The Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA) passed a resolution on 24.9.2007 for a bandh on 1.10.2007 to pressurize the Central Government regarding the Sethu Samudram Project. The petitioner challenged this resolution in the Madras High Court, which issued directions to ensure no disruption of public life and services. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, which restrained the political parties from proceeding with the bandh. - High Court and Supreme Court Orders: The High Court directed the state machinery to ensure no disruption of public life on 1.10.2007. The Supreme Court, on 30.9.2007, restrained the political parties from proceeding with the bandh. - Compliance by Respondents 1 to 3: Respondent No. 1 issued instructions to maintain law and order and essential services. Respondent No. 2 conveyed these instructions to police officers. Respondent No. 3 ensured that transport services were operational to the extent possible. Despite these efforts, the petitioner alleged that the bandh was enforced, causing disruption. - Affidavits and Evidence: Respondents 1 to 3 detailed the steps taken to comply with the court's orders. They claimed that the disruption was due to the support of trade unions and the public's fear of violence, not due to any willful disobedience on their part. The court found no evidence of willful disobedience or that respondents 1 to 3 failed to take necessary steps. - Conclusion: The court concluded that respondents 1 to 3 took all necessary steps to comply with the court's order. The evidence presented did not establish willful disobedience. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 were not held guilty of contempt. 2. Criminal Contempt by Respondent No. 6 under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: - Allegations: The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 6 made a speech on 1.10.2007 that scandalized the judiciary and the Supreme Court's order, constituting criminal contempt. - Evidence Presented: The petitioner relied on newspaper reports and an edited tape of the speech telecasted on Jaya T.V. Respondent No. 6 denied the allegations, claiming the reports were inaccurate and the tape was doctored. - Legal Standards for Admissibility: The court noted the standards for admitting tape-recorded evidence, including identification of the speaker, accuracy of the recording, and exclusion of tampering. The petitioner failed to produce primary evidence, such as affidavits from reporters or an unedited tape. - Conclusion: The court found that the evidence presented did not meet the required standards for proving criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, respondent No. 6 was not held guilty of criminal contempt. Final Judgment: - The contempt petitions were dismissed as the court found no willful disobedience by respondents 1 to 5 and no sufficient evidence to hold respondent No. 6 guilty of criminal contempt. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
