RAJEEV DHAWAN versus GULSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN & ORS.

RAJEEV DHAWAN versus GULSHAN KUMAR MAHAJAN & ORS.

Due to non-service of notice accompanied by charges on contemner No. 3 over two decades, and his inability to respond because of old age and illness, further proceeding is not warranted. As contempt proceedings are not pursued against the main author, the same should not continue against other contemners who have tendered apology; matter closed.

Parties
Petitioner: Rajeev Dhawan; Respondent: Gulshan Kumar Mahajan; Respondent: Pradeep Thakur; Respondent: Giriraj Kishore; Respondent: Prabhu Chawla; Respondent: V.K. Kapur; Respondent: Bhaskar Roy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (criminal) No. 2 of 1994 / Final Disposition by Constitution Bench
Outcome
Contempt matters disposed of; proceedings closed.
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Scandalizing the Court, Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993
Contempt of Court Constitutional Law Criminal Contempt Scandalizing the Court Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajeev Dhawan

Petitioner

Gulshan Kumar Mahajan

Respondent

Pradeep Thakur

Respondent

Giriraj Kishore

Respondent

Prabhu Chawla

Respondent

V.K. Kapur

Respondent

Bhaskar Roy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (criminal) No. 2 of 1994 / Final Disposition by Constitution Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether derogatory statements published in the media amount to criminal contempt of Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether contempt proceedings should be pursued after delay and inability of contemner to respond
  3. 3 Appropriateness of proceeding against other contemners

Ratio Decidendi

Due to non-service of notice accompanied by charges on contemner No. 3 over two decades, and his inability to respond because of old age and illness, further proceeding is not warranted. As contempt proceedings are not pursued against the main author, the same should not continue against other contemners who have tendered apology; matter closed.

Court Disposition

Contempt matters disposed of; proceedings closed.

Orders

  • Contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not pursued further.
  • Contemner Nos. 1 and 2 tendered unconditional apology.