Updated: December 3, 2020 10:48:50 am
Attorney General of India K Venugopal. (Express Photo: Tashi Tobgyal, File)
Indian Attorney General KK Venugopal on Tuesday consent granted initiate criminal proceedings for contempt of court against comic book illustrator Rachita Taneja for allegedly scandalizing the judiciary through her tweets and illustrations.
A law student had brought Taneja’s tweets and illustration, in the context of the Supreme Court’s decision to release Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, who was arrested for allegedly instigating suicide. , to the notification of the Attorney General.
What is the procedure for filing a criminal case for contempt of court against an individual?
The contempt of court Act 1971 establishes the law on contempt of court. Section 15 of the legislation describes the procedure on how a contempt of court case can be started.
In the case of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Attorney General, and in the case of the Superior Courts, the Attorney General, may file a motion in court to initiate a criminal contempt case.
However, if the motion is made by someone else, written consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General.
The motion or reference made to initiate the case must specify the contempt of which the accused is alleged to be guilty.
But why does the Attorney General have to consent?
The procedure in cases of criminal contempt of court, which means the publication of material that scandalizes or lowers the dignity of the court or prejudges or interferes with court procedures, requires the consent of the Attorney General of the Republic.
The purpose of requiring the consent of the Attorney General before hearing a complaint is to save the court time. Judicial time is wasted if frivolous petitions are made and the court is the first forum to present them. The consent of the Attorney General is intended to be a safeguard against frivolous petitions, as the Attorney General, as an officer of the court, is considered to independently determine whether the complaint is actually valid.
Attorney General KK Venugopal with President Ram Nath Kovind. (Express file)
Is the consent of the attorney general mandatory for all contempt of court cases?
The consent of the attorney general is mandatory when a private citizen wants to initiate a contempt of court case against a person. Before a guilty plea can be entered, the Attorney General must approve the complaint and determine whether it requires court attention.
However, when the court itself initiates a contempt of court case, as it recently did in the Prashant Bhushan case, the consent of the attorney general is not required. This is because the court is exercising its inherent powers under the Constitution to punish for contempt and these constitutional powers cannot be restricted because the Attorney General refused to grant consent.
The bench of three judges headed by Judge Arun Mishra reiterated this position in the Prashant Bhushan case. “As for suo motu petitions, there is no requirement to obtain the consent of anyone, including the learned attorney general, because the Court is exercising its inherent powers to issue a contempt notice. It is equally well resolved, that once the Court becomes aware, the matter is purely between the Court and the contemnor. The only requirement is that the procedure followed must be fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, ”the court had said.
AG Venugopal had repeatedly objected to the court initiating contempt proceedings against Bhushan during the course of the hearing. 📣 Follow Express explained on Telegram
And what happens if the attorney general denies consent?
If the attorney general denies consent, the matter is almost over. In August, AG Venugopal had refused to consent to criminal contempt proceedings against actor Swara Bhasker for allegedly making disparaging remarks against the Supreme Court. Last week, he rejected a request to initiate contempt proceedings against author Shefali Vaidya, as the tweets were made more than a year ago. The law has a limitation period of one year to bring action against an individual.
However, the plaintiff may, separately, bring the matter to the attention of the court and urge the court to hear suo motu (ex officio). If the court learns suo motu, as it did in the case of Prashant Bhushan, the consent of the highest ranking law enforcement officer is not required.
Article 129 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to initiate contempt cases on its own, regardless of the motion presented by the Attorney General or with the consent of the Attorney General.
“The Supreme Court shall be a court of registry and shall have all the powers of said court, including the power to punish itself for contempt”, Article 129 establishes.
What happens after the AG has given its consent?
Once the Attorney General’s consent is given in writing, a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act is personally served on the person against whom the court is requested to initiate proceedings. If the court decides not to serve the service in person, the law requires the court to record the reasons.
If the court is convinced that the alleged opponent is likely to escape or evade legal proceedings, it can order the seizure of the property of a value that it considers reasonable.
Once the notice is delivered, the alleged contestant can file an affidavit in support of his defense, explaining the nature and circumstances of his comments. The law requires that the case be heard by a court of at least two judges. The court then considers any available evidence to verify the affidavit and approve the corresponding orders.
.
