[ad_1]
New Delhi:
Senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai shouldn’t be prosecuted for contempt, the lawyer basic has stated, rejecting requests to file a case in opposition to the tv information anchor for tweets that had been accused of criticising the Supreme Court.
Attorney General KK Venugopal’s workplace had obtained a request to start contempt proceedings in opposition to Mr Sardesai for his feedback on the Supreme Court ruling that discovered senior advocate Prashant Bhushan responsible of contempt final month.
The petitioner had reportedly talked about a lot of tweets by the journalist on the day the court docket fined Mr Bhushan Rs 1 for his social media posts on the judiciary and the Chief Justice.
Breaking: Rs 1 token advantageous imposed by SC on @pbhushan1 in contempt case.. if he would not pay it, then three months jail sentence! Clearly, court docket trying to wriggle out of a humiliation of its personal making.
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) August 31, 2020
More on @pbhushan1 case: FYI: Sec 67 of IPC stipulates – if advantageous < Rs. 50/- ,imprisonment cannot exceed 2 months. SC has given three months.
2. SC has no authority to debar apply – 5 Judge Bench ruling of SC in VC Misra’s case. Why cannot SC simply apologise and be accomplished with it!????— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) August 31, 2020
Breaking: @pbhushan1 held responsible of contempt by SC, sentence to be pronounced on August 20.. this at the same time as habeas corpus petitions of these detained in Kashmir for greater than a 12 months stay pending! ????
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) August 14, 2020
Rejecting the request to prosecute Mr Sardesai, the lawyer basic stated, “Trifling remarks and mere passing criticism though perhaps distasteful are unlikely to tarnish the image of the institution.”
Last month, Mr Venugopal declined permission to an advocate to file a contempt plea in opposition to actor Swara Bhasker for feedback on the Supreme Court’s verdict within the Babri Masjid and Ayodhya land dispute case.
Cases for contempt have drawn elevated public curiosity after lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan was held responsible of the identical cost final month which have stoked discussions on free speech and dissent. Mr Bhushan, the court docket dominated, had crossed a line in making feedback in regards to the judiciary.
Mr Bhushan, in his defence, stated he thought-about his tweets “as an attempt for working for the betterment of the institution”, and that open criticism was essential to safeguard democracy in India.
The lawyer basic, who had himself filed a contempt petition within the Supreme Court in opposition to Mr Bhushan final 12 months for feedback on the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao, this time, urged the court docket to disregard the veteran lawyer’s tweets.
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink