•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal writ seeks SIT & contempt vs the Patiala House three [READ PETITION]

Senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal has filed a fresh writ petition in the Supreme Court through advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking to institute a Special Investigation Team to probe the incidents of attacks on 15 and 17 February at Patiala House court and also issue suo motu contempt proceeding against three advocates, accused of interfering in the administration of justice and for willfully violating the orders of the Supreme Court dated 17 February.

The three lawyers named in the petition as the respondent-accused are Vikram Singh Chauhan, Yashpal Singh, and Om Sharma.

According to the petition, these three advocates were found to be leading the attacks in the incidents as per various reports including media reports, and the sting operation aired on the India Today news channel.

The petition also cited the reports submitted to the Supreme Court by senior advocate, Ajit Kumar Sinha, who had gone with the team of five senior lawyers, the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, and the Delhi Police on the incidents.

Since the addresses of the accused advocates are not known to the petitioner, they have been made parties through BCI, the petition says.

That the petition seeks initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against the accused is significant. Rule 3(a) of the Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt of Supreme Court, 1975 enables the Supreme Court to take action suo motu. For initiating suo motu proceedings, the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is not required.

Today’s report in The Hindu stated that the AG had declined consent to a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against those among the students who gathered to mark the hanging of Parliament attack convict, Afzal Guru in 2014 at JNU on 9 February, for describing his death sentence as “judicial killing”. This petition was under Rule 3(c).

In all cases where the court is not acting suo motu, the motion must be by, or with the written consent of, the AG or the SG This is a mandatory requirement. The object behind this requirement, according to academics, is to ensure that criminal contempt petitions are adequately screened before being placed before the court.

Read Jaiswal’s writ petition (PDF)

Click to show 10 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.