9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Contempt of court for alleged disobedience of directions by State Administrative Tribunal members leading to remarks against the Tribunal's performance.
Judgment Summary: Contempt Petition and Allegations: A Contempt Petition was filed alleging non-compliance by the State Administrative Tribunal with directions from the High Court regarding advancing a hearing and passing appropriate orders on a filed application. Unconditional Apology and Explanation: The Tribunal members offered an unconditional apology and explained the alleged lapses, expressing willingness to follow the directions promptly upon resuming sittings after vacations. High Court's Acceptance and Remarks: The High Court accepted the apology but criticized the Tribunal members, former Judges of the High Court, for disrespecting its directions. The appeal sought to expunge these critical remarks. Legal Precedents and Court's Observations: The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction should be judiciously exercised to uphold the judicial system's dignity. The Court highlighted the need for judicial grace and magnanimity in contempt cases. Judicial Decision: After reviewing the High Court's orders, the Supreme Court found justification for initiating contempt proceedings but deemed some remarks unnecessary. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining decorum and maturity, especially when accepting unconditional apologies. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and all critical remarks made by the High Court were expunged.
|
