RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. versus RE:

RE : VIJAY KURLE & ORS. versus RE:

The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt stems from Article 129 and cannot be abrogated by statute; Section 15 of the Contempt Act is procedural and does not prevent the Court from taking suo motu cognizance without consent of the Attorney-General/Solicitor-General; the notice issued here complied with Form I and the three respondents (Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha) were held guilty of contempt while Mathews Nedumpara was discharged.

Parties
Alleged Contemnor: Vijay Kurle; Alleged Contemnor: Rashid Khan Pathan; Alleged Contemnor: Nilesh C. Ojha; Alleged Contemnor: Mathews Nedumpara
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (criminal) No. 2 of 2019 / Judgment (convicted; Sentencing Pending)
Outcome
Held alleged contemnors Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha guilty of contempt; Mathews Nedumpara discharged; sentencing to be heard.
Legal Topics
Suo Motu Proceedings, Article 129 of the Constitution, Article 142(2) of the Constitution, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 S.15, Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 R.3 & Form I, Form I Notice Requirements, Truth as a Defence to Contempt, Judge Impartiality and Recusal, Disclosure of Source of Information
Contempt of Court Constitutional Law Judicial Procedure Freedom of Speech Suo Motu Proceedings Article 129 of the Constitution Article 142(2) of the Constitution Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 S.15 +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Kurle

Alleged Contemnor

Rashid Khan Pathan

Alleged Contemnor

Nilesh C. Ojha

Alleged Contemnor

Mathews Nedumpara

Alleged Contemnor

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (criminal) No. 2 of 2019 / Judgment (convicted; Sentencing Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court is bound by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or has inherent constitutional contempt powers under Article 129
  2. 2 Whether Article 142(2) limits the Court's contempt powers and the effect of statute thereon
  3. 3 Whether Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is substantive or procedural for suo motu proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt stems from Article 129 and cannot be abrogated by statute; Section 15 of the Contempt Act is procedural and does not prevent the Court from taking suo motu cognizance without consent of the Attorney-General/Solicitor-General; the notice issued here complied with Form I and the three respondents (Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha) were held guilty of contempt while Mathews Nedumpara was discharged.

Court Disposition

Held alleged contemnors Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan and Nilesh C. Ojha guilty of contempt; Mathews Nedumpara discharged; sentencing to be heard.

Orders

  • Held contemnors Nos.1-3 (Vijay Kurle, Rashid Khan Pathan, Nilesh C. Ojha) guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court
  • Discharged contemnor No.4 Mathews Nedumpara (order dated 02.09.2019)