Contempt: Petitioner imposed Rs 1 lakh fine

The bench said the Authority should, in turn, use it for the rehabilitation of children who are forced to sell toys and others items at traffic signals.

Published: 13th January 2021 05:23 AM  |   Last Updated: 13th January 2021 05:23 AM   |  A+A-

Karnataka HC

Karnataka High Court (Photo | EPS)

By Express News Service

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on a petitioner for making scandalous allegations against the judiciary, in relation to a civil dispute about Vyasaraja Mutt (Sosale). A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, which imposed the cost on V Gururaj, resident of Gavipuram extension in Bengaluru, said that the cost should be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

The bench said the Authority should, in turn, use it for the rehabilitation of children who are forced to sell toys and others items at traffic signals. “It is unfortunate that the petitioner has gone to the extent of alleging that all the judges who have practised in Karnataka will be influenced by the former CJI, who was judge of Karnataka High Court.

Most of the judges will show venerat ion towards the undisputed intellect of former CJI,” the bench noted. The petitioner had requested the Chief Justice to post the matter before the judges from other than Karnataka Bar, saying that most of these judges would be influenced by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), who hails from Karnataka. Terming the allegations shocking, the bench said that the petitioner has sought a very peculiar writ of mandamus.

“This is a classic case of scandalising this court. There are allegations made against the former CJI by naming him repeatedly in the petition. Such allegations tend to lower the authority of the court and will constitute interference in judicial proceedings,” the bench observed. On a memo filed by the petitioner’s counsel seeking permission to retire from the case, the bench said that the allegations constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. The bench said, “We expect the petitioner to go before the single judge and withdraw his submission. If it is not done so, action of initiating contempt proceedings is always open.”


Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.