Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The judgement passed by Meghalaya High Court which held editor Patrica Mukhim and publisher She of the Time’s guilty of Shobha Chaudhuri contempt of court & a sentence to pay fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, was stayed by the CJI-led bench of Supreme Court. A notice was also issued to the Registrar General of the High Court on the Special Leave Petition filed by the journalists against the HC’s order.
The High Court Bench of Chief Justice Mohammed Yakoob Mir & Justice S R Sen, on March 8th, a suo moto order was passed in the contempt case against the journalists. An article captioned “When Judges judge for themselves” was published in the “Shillong Times”, criticising the series of orders passed by Justice Sen in suo moto proceedings for enhancing retrial benefits of judges. The article suggested, Justice Sen was judging his own case by directing the State Government to consider enhancing retrial benefits of judges while his own retirement was forthcoming. Justice Sen’s orders were compare with an earlier order passed by a division bench of Meghalaya HC seeking Z plus security to be given to judges. This provoked the HC bench.
This was later set aside by the Apex Court.
We would like to ask whether the contemnor, Smti. Patricia Mukhim wants to control the judiciary as per her desire and will?If it is so, she is very much wrong.”, wrote an upset Justice Sen in the March 8 order.
"Sit in the corner of the Court room till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rupees Two Lakhs", ordered the Court.
'Journalists will have to undergo six months simple imprisonment and the paper so called "Shillong Times" will automatically come to an end (banned)’, if the payment of fine is defaulted, stated the Court.
The journalists, in the petition filed in SC, state that the report was a "fair and accurate reporting" of court proceedings. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes Rs. 2000 fine, while the fine passes by the HC was of Rs 2 lakhs which was submitted to be “manifestly arbitrary” & thus, the order suffered from “manifest perversity.”
It was also alleged that proper procedure was not followed while passing the order. Criminal Contempt action was taken against the petitioners, while the notice served on them was for Civil Contempt.
86540
103860
630
114
59824