Comments in opposition to SC: A-G declines consent for contempt proceedings in opposition to Kapil Sibal

By PTI

NEW DELHI: Attorney General Ok Ok Venugopal has declined consent for initiating contempt proceedings in opposition to Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal for his final month’s statements concerning the Supreme Court.

Sibal on August 6 made crucial statements regarding some current verdicts of the apex courtroom as a speaker in an occasion organized right here.

Venugopal has stated that having gone by way of the whole thing of his speech, he finds that Sibal’s criticism of the courtroom and the judgements was in order that the courtroom might pay attention to the statements within the bigger curiosity of the justice supply system.

“It does not appear to me that the statements were intended to scandalize the court or affect the confidence of the public in the institution. I accordingly decline consent,” the highest legislation officer stated in his letter to advocate Vineet Jindal.

Jindal had sought the Attorney General’s consent to provoke contempt proceedings in opposition to Sibal for allegedly making statements “scandalizing” the verdicts delivered by the apex courtroom.

As per part 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the nod of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is a situation precedent to set the legal contempt proceedings in movement earlier than the apex courtroom.

In his letter, Venugopal stated he has examined the statements made of their entirety, “the Hindi portions have been translated for me and which run into about 30 minutes”.

“The statements which pertain to loss of faith in the Supreme Court are not contemptuous on the face of it, as the import of those statements is the fact that the orders of the Supreme Court are not implemented on the ground,” he stated.

Venugopal stated no a part of these statements casts any blame or aspersion upon the courtroom.

The Attorney General stated the statements “relating to the critiques of certain judgements delivered by the Supreme Court would fall squarely within the purview of ‘fair comment’ which is permissible under section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, itself”.

He stated concerning the apex courtroom’s judgement upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the matter is presently sub-judice as a evaluate petition has been entertained by the highest courtroom which is pending.

On the difficulty of allocation of instances raised by Sibgal, the legal professional basic stated “So far as the statement related to the allocation of cases is concerned, I find that the four judges of the Supreme Court in a press conference dated January 12, 2018, expressed these same views in relation to the allocation of cases by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.”

The Attorney General stated that underneath part 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a choose will be held in contempt of his personal courtroom.

“However, no contempt action had ever been initiated by the Supreme Court against the makers of those statements, and therefore in my opinion it would not be appropriate that action be initiated against Sibal,” he stated.

“Having gone through the entirety of Sibal’s speech, I find that his criticism of the court and the judgements was so that the court may take note of the statements in the larger interest of the justice delivery system,” he stated.

NEW DELHI: Attorney General Ok Ok Venugopal has declined consent for initiating contempt proceedings in opposition to Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal for his final month’s statements concerning the Supreme Court.

Sibal on August 6 made crucial statements regarding some current verdicts of the apex courtroom as a speaker in an occasion organized right here.

Venugopal has stated that having gone by way of the whole thing of his speech, he finds that Sibal’s criticism of the courtroom and the judgements was in order that the courtroom might pay attention to the statements within the bigger curiosity of the justice supply system.

“It does not appear to me that the statements were intended to scandalize the court or affect the confidence of the public in the institution. I accordingly decline consent,” the highest legislation officer stated in his letter to advocate Vineet Jindal.

Jindal had sought the Attorney General’s consent to provoke contempt proceedings in opposition to Sibal for allegedly making statements “scandalizing” the verdicts delivered by the apex courtroom.

As per part 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the nod of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is a situation precedent to set the legal contempt proceedings in movement earlier than the apex courtroom.

In his letter, Venugopal stated he has examined the statements made of their entirety, “the Hindi portions have been translated for me and which run into about 30 minutes”.

“The statements which pertain to loss of faith in the Supreme Court are not contemptuous on the face of it, as the import of those statements is the fact that the orders of the Supreme Court are not implemented on the ground,” he stated.

Venugopal stated no a part of these statements casts any blame or aspersion upon the courtroom.

The Attorney General stated the statements “relating to the critiques of certain judgements delivered by the Supreme Court would fall squarely within the purview of ‘fair comment’ which is permissible under section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, itself”.

He stated concerning the apex courtroom’s judgement upholding the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the matter is presently sub-judice as a evaluate petition has been entertained by the highest courtroom which is pending.

On the difficulty of allocation of instances raised by Sibgal, the legal professional basic stated “So far as the statement related to the allocation of cases is concerned, I find that the four judges of the Supreme Court in a press conference dated January 12, 2018, expressed these same views in relation to the allocation of cases by the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.”

The Attorney General stated that underneath part 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a choose will be held in contempt of his personal courtroom.

“However, no contempt action had ever been initiated by the Supreme Court against the makers of those statements, and therefore in my opinion it would not be appropriate that action be initiated against Sibal,” he stated.

“Having gone through the entirety of Sibal’s speech, I find that his criticism of the court and the judgements was so that the court may take note of the statements in the larger interest of the justice delivery system,” he stated.