Read Time: 05 minutes
Sukin's letter stated that Justice Dhingra, in a TV interview, had said that the Supreme Court imposed a charge and gave a verdict without listening to Nupur Sharma and the Supreme Court’s observations on Nupur Sharma were ‘irresponsible’, ‘illegal’, and ‘unfair’.
Attorney General of India KK Venugopal has refused to give consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Justice (retd) S.N.Dhingra ,senior counsels Rama Kumar and Aman Lekhi for their statements on Supreme Court’s oral observations in Nupur Sharma’s case. Advocate Jaya Sukin, had written to the AG for consent.
According to the letter by Sukin, in an interview with India TV on July 2, 2022 Justice Dhingra asserted that the Top Court has no right to make such remarks. According to the letter, he said that the Supreme Court imposed a charge and gave a verdict without listening to Nupur Sharma. It was further alleged that Justice Dhingra, retired judge of Delhi High Court, slammed the Supreme Court’s observations on Nupur Sharma, terming it as ‘irresponsible’, ‘illegal’ and ‘unfair’.
Sukin’s letter also spoke of, statements made by Senior Advocates Aman Lekhi and Rama Kumar, to a web-based legal news portal called Verdictum. The letter stated that the statements of three persons have caused irreparable injuries to Indian Judiciary and the nation by un-parliamentary statements and derogatory remarks hence fall within the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The letter stated that during the course of hearing any matter, the judges engage with counsel, and don't maintain sphinx-like silence. According to the letter, while engaging with counsel, it's natural for judges to open up and make observations and suggestions. The letter states that expunging observations, even if unjustified or irrelevant, shouldn't arise since these remarks are tentative observations.
The AG, in his reply to the letter, has stated that the statements of three persons are in the realm of “fair comment” on a hearing conducted by Supreme Court. The AG has further observed that their statements are not abusive and are not likely to interfere with the administration of justice by the Supreme Court.
The reply letter further notes that the Supreme Court in various judgments has held that fair and reasonable criticism, of the judicial proceedings, would not amount to contempt of court. The AG has concluded that he is not satisfied that the comments by three persons are with malice or an attempt to impair the administration of justice.
The AG has further noted that the statements were not an attempt to bring down the image of the judiciary. In the light of the above, the AG has declined to grant consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
Please Login or Register
