TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Attorney General declines consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Kapil Sibal

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

New Delhi, September 2

Advertisement

Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to give his consent to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against former Law Minister and senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

Advertisement

Advocate Vineet Jindal had sought the Attorney General’s consent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Sibal for allegedly saying that he had “no hope left in the institution (the Supreme Court)” at the People’s Tribunal organized on  August 6, 2022, here on “Judicial Rollback of Civil Liberties”.

Sibal had criticized the top court’s verdict dismissing Zakia Jafri’s plea challenging the SIT’s clean chit to the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other state functionaries in the 2002 post-Godhra riots. He had also questioned the top court’s verdict upholding the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that gave wider powers to the Enforcement Directorate.

However, Venugopal refused to give consent for initiating contempt of court action against Sibal, saying “No part of the statements cast any blame or aspersion upon the (top) court.” Sibal’s statements were not intended to scandalize the court or affect the confidence of the public in the institution, he noted.

Advertisement

The Attorney General concluded that Sibal’s statement criticizing the top court’s judgments would fall squarely within the purview of ‘fair comment’ which is permissible under Section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

 

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement