Referring to the tweets, Venugopal said that “they are not only in bad taste but clearly cross the line between humor and contempt for the court.”
“Apart from this, there is a photograph of the Supreme Court building dressed in saffron with a flag of the ruling political party, namely the BJP, having replaced the tricolor. This is a rude insinuation against the entire Indian Supreme Court that the SC is not an independent and impartial institution and so are its judges, but is on the other hand a ruling party court. Bjp … All of this, in my opinion, constitutes criminal contempt of court, ”Venugopal said in his letter consenting to an Aurangabad resident to initiate contempt proceedings against Kamra.
The Attorney General specifically mentioned Kamra’s two controversial tweets, but said other tweets are also highly objectionable and that the court must answer whether those tweets also constitute contempt of court.
“I find that today people believe that they can boldly and unabashedly condemn the Supreme Court of India and its judges exercising what they believe to be their freedom of expression. But according to the Constitution, freedom of speech is subject to the law of contempt and I think it is time for people to understand that attacking the Supreme Court of India in an unjustified and blatant manner will attract punishment under the Law of Contempt. to the 1971 Courts. Therefore, please grant consent to proceed by initiating contempt proceedings against Kunal Kamra, “Venugopal said in his letter to Shrirang Katneshwarkar, who requested his permission to proceed against the comedian for contempt of court. .
The consent of the attorney general is required under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, read with Rule 3 (c) of the Rules to regulate contempt proceedings of the Supreme Court of India, 1975.
Venugopal had previously refused consent to initiate criminal contempt against the actor Swara bhaskar say that his comment on the verdict of the Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute was his perception.
“The comment refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court, and is not an attack on the institution. This does not offer any comment on the Supreme Court itself nor does it say anything that scandalizes or tends to lower the authority of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, this statement does not constitute criminal contempt, “Venugopal had said while refusing to consent to a contempt process against the Bollywood actress.
.
