Tag: #ContemptofCourt

-Report by A.K. Sooraj

The Delhi High Court in the case of  Rashmi Sehrawat vs Praveen Sehrawat held that the failure to comply with the orders of maintenance, even after giving several opportunities, amounts to contempt of court.

 FACTS:

The contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, wife stating that the Respondent, husband was in wilful disobedience and deliberate non-compliance with the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Mahila Court, New Delhi ( Trial Court), whereby the Respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000, including rent, for the two minor sons and the Petitioner from the date of application to the disposal of the case. This contempt petition was filed by the Petitioner on 24.08.2020, given the absolute non-compliance of the said order dated 18.09.2019. The petition alleged that since the date of the order, the Respondent has not made any payments. The aforementioned order of 18.09.2019 had been challenged by both parties, and the cross-appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in an order dated 12.11.2020. A finding was returned by the Appellate  Court that the monthly income of the Respondent is Rs. 65,000. The Appellant Court directed the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 5000 per month for the maintenance of each child and apart from that he was directed to pay Rs. 10000 per month for the school fees of each child. In addition, the Respondent was directed to pay Rs 10000 per month for the Petitioner towards the maintenance and Rs. 5000 towards the rent. The Appellate Court determined the sum total of the monthly amount of maintenance as Rs. 45000 subjects to the variation on account of school fees.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was Rs. 15,45,000 in maintenance arrears as of the current date for the petitioner and her young children. He said that this did not include the minor children’s unpaid school expenses. He claims that the Respondent in this case has a sizable rental revenue of 10–12 lakhs per month based on instructions from the Petitioner. According to him, the respondent in this case and his family are the owners of 32 units in Mahipalpur. He further refers to the Petitioner’s averments, which allege that the Respondent sold the Greater Noida villa for Rs. 49,00,000 in 2018. He claims that the Trial Court had directed the Respondent to present an account of the relevant transaction and specifics of how the relevant sum had been spent. He claims that the Respondent has purposefully disobeyed the aforementioned directive and has not yet supplied it. He added that the minor children were being harassed for fee demands and made fun of by the relevant school as a result of the Respondent’s actions in failing to pay their tuition on time.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The learned counsel for the Respondent claimed in a computation that the amount of arrears due and payable as of 01.02.2023 was Rs. 8,52,333. The Petitioner disputed the computation and the statement of payments attached, refusing to accept the entries made therein. On February 15, 2023, he restated his arguments from February 13 to the effect that the petitioner could not continue the current contempt proceedings since she had submitted an execution petition that was still being decided by the Trial Court. He also added that the non-compliance with the orders was not wilful or intentional. He claimed that despite his best efforts, the Respondent was unable to pay the arrears under the conditions of the maintenance order due to the Respondent’s meagre income.

JUDGEMENT:

The current matter has been listed 32 times. Even as of the date the decisions were reserved, the amount of accepted maintenance arrears owed by the Respondent was Rs. 8,52,333 (which, according to the Petitioner, should be Rs. 15,45,000). The Respondent had not made the payments of the admitted arrears even after repeatedly, seeking time from this Court to clear the same. the Respondent is a 50-year-old professional, holding a degree and therefore, in accordance with the judgement in Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine 1314, capable of earning and maintaining his wife and children. Respondent had numerous opportunities and undertakings, but he had failed to follow the maintenance directives. The Respondent was adjudged to have committed contempt of court and was subject to punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the Court was of the opinion that the Respondent was defiant and wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the undertakings made to the Court and orders made by the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the Court in these proceedings. The Court sentenced the respondent, contemnor, Mr. Praveen Sehrawat, to undergo two months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000, and in default of the payment of the fine, he shall further undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment. Following the judgement in Sonali Bhatia vs Abhivansh Narang, the Court directed that the Respondent exhibit his apology by complying with the orders of the Trial Court as modified by the Appellate Court, and directions issued by the Court makes payment of entire arrears of maintenance within ten (10) days and undertakes to continue to pay the maintenance until the order dated 12.11.2020 continues to remain in force, and tenders an unconditional apology to the Court, the Court shall consider recalling the punishment of Respondent undergoing simple imprisonment, provided the respondent complies with the aforesaid directions within 10 days. However, he was instructed to appear before the Jail Superintendent at the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, on April 20, 2023, if he does not abide by the aforementioned instruction within the time allotted.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3zOvT5X

INTRODUCTION

The age-old Contempt of Courts laws’ history comes way back from the period of Regulating Act enacted by the British in India, where, the Mayor’s Court was given the authority which is equal to that of the English King’s Bench court for assigning punishment for the offence of contempt of court.

The first Contempt of Courts Act was enacted in 1926. The Act gave the authority to the three High Courts in Colonial India- Bombay, Madras and Calcutta to penalise any person for the offence of contempt on itself and also its inferior courts. The punishment was imprisonment for a minimum of 6 months or a fine or both for committing the Act. However, on an apology submitted by the accused, he/ she would be discharged.

After India acquired independence, the Act of 1926 was replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act 1952. The highest court of India, i.e., the Supreme Court also known as the Court of Record has been given powers that the High Courts during British India had along with the power to penalise for contempt by Article 129 of the Constitution of India. The Act of 1954 had many shortcomings in it. The committee headed by the Former Additional Solicitor General, H. N. Sanyal, reviewed the contempt laws in 1971 after a decade of its enforcement. The Committee was mandated to: 

(i) review the law pertaining to court contempt generally, and in particular, the law pertaining to the sanctioning process;

(ii) to propose changes therein in order to (whenever necessary) clarify and revise the law; and

(iii)  to offer suggestions for the codification of the legislation.

The lacunae present in the previous Acts have been corrected and the present Contempt Courts Act 1971 was formulated as per which, it is “An Act to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto.”

CONTEMPT OF COURTS

In general terms, we can understand that anyone who disrespects the court or its legal authorities or disobeys the order of the court, the judge has the right to impose fines on them or can sentence imprisonment for some time if found guilty of the act. This phrase can also be taken in terms of the judiciary’s freedom from restrictions. As is common knowledge, every judge has the authority to grant judicial proceedings within the bounds of the law. Anything that restricts or prevents a judge from granting a necessary judicial action can be considered contempt of court.

According to Section 2 (a) of The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Contempt of Court is defined as civil or criminal contempt.¹

The Constitution of India has 2 two Articles regarding the Contempt of Courts.

1. Article 129²– This Article gives the power to Supreme Court to be the ‘Court of Record’ and it has the authority to penalise for contempt of itself and its inferior courts.
2. Article 142(2)³– The Supreme Court shall have absolute authority to issue an order for the purpose of securing any person’s attendance, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself, subject to the requirements of any law established in this regard by Parliament.
3. Article 215⁴– The High Courts have the right to punish for the contempt of courts and its lower courts.

CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, is the only act which has defined the terms ‘Contempt of Courts’ in the enactment. As mentioned earlier, contempt of court is defined as civil or criminal contempt. In Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty⁵, a person provided a court with an undertaking during civil proceedings. The court sanctioned a course of action based on the assumption that the undertaking was accurate, yet the undertaking appears to be false. As a result, this was viewed as misbehaviour and court contempt. There are various clauses in this legislation which state that doing so does not constitute contempt of court.

The Act specifies under Sections 3 to 7 that innocent publication and distribution of matter, accurate report of the proceedings, fair criticism, complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts, and publication of information relating to proceedings in chambers or camera do not amount to contempt. Any other defences except mentioned under the act don’t affect. The Act gives the power to the high courts to try the contempt of courts cases and also the punishments are prescribed, procedures, etc., are mentioned.

Types of Contempt:

1. Civil Contempt:

Civil contempt is defined in Section 2 (b) as “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;”⁶

Essentials of Civil Contempt:

• The disobedience or breach must be done wilfully.
• The act must be done deliberately.
• A genuine court order being issued, the respondent being aware of the order, and their capacity to comply.
• It does not include careless, negligent, honest, or unintended behaviour or a real incapacity to follow the requirements of the order.

Cases:

In Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh⁷, the Supreme Court has held that mere disobedience of the decree is not enough to prove civil contempt. The element of willingness is important to charge within the Act. In the case of Dr. Sajad Majid v. Dr. Zahoor Ahmed⁸, the court stated that mere pendency of the appeal in the appellate jurisdiction does not protect him from contempt of court if there is a non-compliance of the order and that would cause him risk since it’s done without any legal justification.

• Criminal Contempt:

According to section 2(c), “ ‘criminal contempt’ means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which— (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”⁹

Cases:

In the case of Jaswanth Singh v. Virender Singh¹⁰, a lawyer made a scandalous and insulting attack on the High Court judge. A petition for an election was submitted to the High Court by an advocate. In order to hear more arguments in an election petition and to transfer election petitions, he wished to ask to remain. These things undermine the High Court’s judicial process and have a propensity to embarrass the Court. In this instance, it was determined that there had been an attempt to intimidate the High Court judge and obstruct the conduct of a fair trial.

In Anantha Lal Singh v. Alfred Henry¹¹, it was held that any comment upon the advocate who is handling the suit amounts to contempt of court on the same principle, which is applicable to the judges or the judgement.

Punishments under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, mentions the punishments for the offence of contempt. The Act states that there can be simple imprisonment which extends to 6 months or with a fine, which extends to Rs. 2,000 or both. However, on the accused apologising for the act committed, he can be discharged or the punishment can be remitted. The Supreme Court has the authority to award punishment to its subordinate courts as well.

In the case of Re: Arundhati Roy¹², Supreme Court made the observation that legitimate criticism of a judge’s behaviour or the role of the judiciary as an institution may not constitute contempt if it is offered in good faith and for the benefit of the general public. The editors of the Times of India and the Indian Express were charged with contempt in 1978 as a result of the publication of articles that criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in the habeas corpus case, ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla¹³, where the Supreme Court declined to defend the right to habeas corpus during the Emergency.

LACUNAE

The list continues, but on two fronts, the Act receives harsh criticism. The term “scandalizing the court,” which is used in Section 2(c)(i), is unable to identify action that scandalizes or incites biases against the judicial establishments, leaving a grey area. The meaning of contempt has not been adequately and precisely provided.

In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India¹⁴, it was held –

• that scandalizing the court is not only an offence under the Act but is sui generis. While courts are not unduly sensitive to fair or even outspoken comments, in the larger interest of protecting the administration of Justice, no one can be permitted to distort orders of the court and deliberately give a slant to its proceedings and bring it to ridicule.
• Courts succumbing to the pressure tactics of litigants would result in negation of rule of law. Threats of public protests, meetings and undertaking satyagrahis against orders of Supreme Court prima facie appear to be an attempt to prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
• Courts cannot be forced by pressure tactics of litigants to change their decisions, by organizing protests against court orders in pending judicial proceedings.
• Supreme Court’s shoulders are broad enough to shrug off comments and no action in contempt is needed to be initiated.

Criticism of the Court and restrictions on free speech – A PIL attorney named Prashant Bhushan was found guilty of contempt of court in 2020. He had criticized the judiciary for paying only partial attention to hearing cases during the lockdown after sharing a news photo of India’s then-Chief Justice, Sharad Bobde, riding a motorcycle without a face mask during the Covid-19 epidemic.

The Legal Fraternity has attacked it as having a chilling effect on this right as well since its definition is too broad and imprecise, allowing it to be used to shield the judges from criticism, and because the Freedom of Speech is constrained by the court’s power of contempt. The constitutionality of the Contempt of Courts Act was also challenged by Bhushan and others; this case is still pending.

The Supreme Court declared that merely criticizing the court does not amount to contempt of court in PN Dua v. Shiv Shankar & Ors¹⁵. The Court ruled that as long as criticisms of the legal system or of judges don’t interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice, they should be welcomed in the public realm. However, some people have thought that criticism is being linked with diminishing the authority of courts, which is completely untrue.

CONCLUSION

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 can be said as a colonial act due to its presence in society. The act provides the provisions that protect the dignity of the courts and the judges. Contempt of court is a concept whose remedy is to prove that the information is true. There also are provisions in the act which provide exceptions for the contempt of courts. However, there is also the perspective that, the extent of the contempt authority is constrained by giving it a clear and specific meaning, making it impossible to employ it carelessly or indiscriminately.

It is undeniable that the judiciary has exceptional power when it comes to contempt. The aforementioned authority must be used to uphold the Rule of law, not the supremacy of any particular judge. The rule of law frequently manifests itself through court and tribunal judgements. Therefore, the Court’s inherent authority to protect the majesty and dignity of the courts is the Contempt Jurisdiction.

REFERENCES

1. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s. 2(a).
2. The Constitution of India, art. 129.
3. The Constitution of India, art. 142 (2).
4. The Constitution of India, art. 215.
5. Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, 1990 AIR 464.
6. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s. 2(b).
7. Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 1405.
8. Dr. Sajad Majid v. Dr. Zahoor Ahmed, 1989 Crl.L.J. 2065
9. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971, s. 2(c).
10. Jaswanth Singh v. Virender Singh, 1994 suppl. (5) SCR 336 
11. Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, AIR 1931 Cal 257.
12. Re: Arundhati Roy…. … vs — on, 2002 AIR (SCW) 1210.
13. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 2221.
14. Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr. …. Alleged Contemnor(S)
15. P.N. Dua v Shiv Shankar & Ors, 1988 AIR 208.

This article is written by K. Mihira Chakravarthy, first year BA LLB student from Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU).

INTRODUCTION:

Bar and Bench are two different elements with a common objective of administering justice in society. Bar, the term finds its origin in England, was used to differentiate a group of lawyers from a group of court officers. It is a group of lawyers enrolled with the state bar council who have permission to practice the profession in court. In simple terms, Bar is a place where lawyers take their place in a courtroom. The Bench is a place where judges take their seats in the courtroom. It is applied to differentiate between judges and attorneys.

BAR:

It is an association of lawyers established with the meaning to promote professional ability, enforcement of standards to ethical conduct, the encouragement of the spirit of public service among the members who practice the legal profession. In India, Bar Council was established as a statutory body under the Advocates Act,1961 aiming to regulate legal education and the legal profession. Its members are the lawyers from India and prescribe the qualifications, duties, etiquette, discipline, and conduct of lawyers.

BENCH:

A place where justice is administered by either judge or judges of the court. Bench could be in court or tribunal. The bench where the judge sits should showcase the position’s respect and dignity.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BAR AND BENCH:

Bar provides the foundation for the stability towards the independence of the judiciary. Bench reflects its action carefully as it is a senior figure to lower rank judicial officers who learn from it. Bar and Bench are two sides of the judiciary that works together to deliver justice in society and ensure no delay in justice due to adjournments of hearing. An advocate who outraged the court by removing the foundation of the court, such an act of an advocate only results in dishonouring the system for justice administration. An advocate must respect the honour and dignity of the Bench. A judge must perform his duties fairly, non-bias, are held liable for their judgments in the court of law. In L.M. Das v. Advocate General Orrisa¹ believed that advocates play an important role in the practice of achieving justice. In another case of the Madras High court, it was held that to administer justice it is essential to have Bar.²

The relationship between bar and bench must not act as a hindrance to the administration of justice, in the case of P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murthi and others³, Shri Krishna Das had died leaving immovable property that led to disputes. Among all those who claimed the property, there was a woman named Vidyawati. The lawyer of Vidyawati purchased the property and later on sold it to a third party. A complaint was made against the lawyer in Delhi Bar Council as the lawyer was enrolled in Delhi. Court held that any complaint made before the disciplinary committee must be resolved within a year and the Bar Council of India later enquired into the case and resultantly expelled him for a year. Before practicing any other right given to Bar by law the advocate practice the Right to be heard in courts to perform its role play in case.⁴

Roles played by Bar and Bench go hand in hand. The profession of Bar and Bench is the ultimate result of legal education. Those who belong to Bench are those who used to be part of the bar at one time. The mutual agreement of Bar and Bench helps in the administration of justice in society.

HOW ‘BENCH’ CAN STRENGTHEN RELATIONS WITH ‘BAR’?

The judicial system of state must be:

1. The judge must hear both the parties before deciding the case. Enough opportunity must be given to both sides to represent their case.
2. Judge shall not be impartial while giving his judgment.
3. Judges shall interfere in proceedings to keep a check of relevancy of facts, receiving clarification on arguments.  
4. Judges must interpret the laws, acts, orders, and rules, that are in question to remove the inconsistency of provisions.
5. Cases must not be adjourned for a longer duration of time and must have sufficient reason for any adjournment.
6. Disposition of case should be done at the earliest if possible.
7. Maintaining the independence of the judiciary.
8. The meetings must be held among judges and advocates presenting the case so that the difficulty faced can be resolved.
9. The changes in the legal world must be known by the judge.

HOW ‘BAR’ CAN STRENGTHEN RELATIONS WITH ‘BENCH’?

1. Respect must be shown towards the courts and judges.
2. Steps must be taken by advocates to ensure the avoidance of unfair practices by their clients.
3. Advocates must not influence the judgments of courts.
4. Advocates shall present the case with a clear mention of the laws involved and relevant case laws.
5. Advocates must present facts before the court, not those which molded to be shown as truth.
6. Advocate must not present a case before the judge to who he is personally related.
7. Advocate must not be involved in any case based on their financial interest.
8. Advocate shall not represent any case that may have a personal influence.

CONTEMPT OF COURT:

Supreme Court bench believed the cordial relations between bar and bench are a necessity so that the process of delivering justice in society could run smoothly. Lack of good relationship between bar and bench leads to slowing the process of administering justice and justice delayed is justice denied. The process in which justice is administered affects both bar and bench equally. The key to the stability of the relationship between bar and bench is respect towards each other. Both must support each other during difficulty. Being at bar is a prior step to becoming a judge. Every judge was once a lawyer.  They both are the product of the same legal system just superiority varies. Sometimes, due to the severity of the case or facts, issues the conversation may turn into a heated and harsh debate.

The harsh approach by lawyers sometimes may lead to harm the very foundation that laid justice. It’s like disrespecting the system itself. An advocate must keep his/her personal opinion regarding anything to himself/herself and must act within the boundaries provided by law. Being at a higher position doesn’t give them the right to degrade the lower-class judicial officers or the members of the bar. An act of disrespecting the conduct either by a judge or by lawyer amounts to contempt of court. For instance, the use of language that implicates insult against a judge or conceives him/her with his removal and transferring to another area challenging the authority of the judge and defaming him/her in any manner is a punishable offense under the act and must be held liable under the appropriate section.

Contempt of court is governed under the Contempt of Court Act,1971 aiming at types of contempt of court and punishment for the act of contempt of court. In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, the court punished the lawyer by suspending his license to practice the profession for a specified period. Civil Contempt as defined under the act states wilful disobedience of any court order or decree or judgment. Criminal Contempt as defined under the act, states the publication of any material defaming the conduct of courts or judges, or any obstruction in the administration of justice.

Rachita Taneja⁵ was a cartoonist who was accused of posting objectionable cartoons of the Supreme Court. It was held that if in the eyes of the accused his action was of fair criticism that still does not mean they have the authority to contempt the court. Prashant Bhushan⁶ the senior advocate published two tweets claiming the denial of fundamental rights to citizens by keeping Supreme Court in lockdown and another tweet states that Supreme Court destructed the functioning of democracy. This too was met with heavy criticism.

CONCLUSION:

The relationship between Bar and the bench hasn’t developed fully since the introduction of democracy in Indian society. They both have mutual responsibility toward society to administer justice fairly. There must be a system of adjustment between both the elements of justice. Both the elements must function together to enhance their relationship in a better way. Both must uphold the basics of a free and independent judiciary. They must ensure the absence of impartiality, rule of law must be present to guarantee the independence of the judiciary from the state’s control.

Nowadays, the problem is that every day 5 to 6 letters were filed for adjourning of hearings on the ground of personal difficulty, this frequent adjournment is a matter of concern for both Bar and Bench. Lawyers must come thoroughly prepared for the presentation of the case so that there would no delay in process of justice delivery. Similarly, Judges must ensure to take much of the information so that there must be no hurdles in process of justice delivery. To attain justice in society both parties must play their part efficiently and cautiously. The bar must always be independent, responsible, and potent, to perform its function effectively so that the independence of the judiciary is maintained. If there must exist good relations between bar and bench, the high expense at the cost can be very much reduced.

---

CITATIONS:

1 1957 AIR 250.

² 1966 2 MLJ 219.

³ 1998 AIR SC 283.

⁴ 1943 AIR Lahore 14.

⁵ 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1042.

⁶ 2020 SCC OnLine SC 588.

This article is written by Simran Gulia pursuing BA LLB from Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah had appointed Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner as Narendra Modi heads the appointment committee. Rakesh Asthana is an IPS officer and former CBI Special Director as well from which he had retired lately. Being aggrieved by the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner Advocate ML Sharma had filed a petition against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah by alleging them for Contempt of Court.

Advocate Sharma stated in his petition that as per the previous judgment of Prakash Singh, that for the appointment as DGP a person must have at least three months of service left before retirement. But as per the present situation appointment is made in violation of Prakash Singh Judgment as four days were left for superannuation which is contempt for the court.

The question that has been put forth from the plea is that whether the Constitution will Survive the dictatorship of the government servant. It was stated that such contempt which is made by Prime Minister itself raised a serious question that does they don’t consideration rules and law as nothing is only for common people.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

The Jharkhand High Court, while hearing a bail application in a sexual assault of a minor case, gravely criticized the investigating authority and the officers of the case for defiance of judicial orders.

The victim, who shall remain nameless, was a 13-year-old minor girl who was sexually assaulted by the petitioner and the victim had neither been made a charge sheet witness nor was presented before the court, despite judicial orders which instructed them to do the same.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the victim of the case was not a charge sheet witness and had not even been examined yet. He further stated that despite several letters written to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, and the DIG, Dumka, the petitioner is rotting in custody for more than 3 years and the victim is not being examined.

The court stated that it is really surprising why the Investigating officer has not made the victim a charge sheet witness, despite the case being registered under POCSO Act and the victim is a 13-year-old minor girl. Further, the court found that the Trial Court has sent several letters to the Superintendent of Police and also to the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand asking to produce the victim in front of court but the said letters yielded no response and no actions were taken.

The court concluded that prima facie the acts of the Investigating officers and authorities cannot be said to be bonafide since leaving out the main person as a witness in the charge sheet and continuous defiance of court orders are bound to arise questions and suspicions. The court feels that the officers, by not responding to judicial orders, have committed contempt of Court.

The court ultimately stated that an affidavit should be filed by the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand personally within 3 weeks after making proper inquiry and verification.

-Report by Anuj Dhar