TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentIPL 2025
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Nupur Sharma case: No contempt case against Justice Dhingra, two others, says AG KK Venugopal

New Delhi, July 14 Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to give his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against former Delhi High Court judge SN Dhingra and two senior lawyers for criticising the Supreme Court judges who said suspended BJP...
Advertisement

New Delhi, July 14

Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to give his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against former Delhi High Court judge SN Dhingra and two senior lawyers for criticising the Supreme Court judges who said suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma was responsible for the violence that followed her remarks on Prophet Mohammed.

Advertisement

“I am not satisfied that the criticism made by the three persons named in your letter is with malice or is an attempt to impair the administration of justice, or that it was a deliberate and motivated attempt to bring down the image of the judiciary. In the circumstances, I accordingly decline consent to initiate proceedings to criminal contempt of the Supreme Court,” Venugopal said in a letter to advocate CR Jaya Sukin.

Sukin had sought the AG’s consent for criminal contempt of court action against Dhingra, former additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi and senior advocate K Rama Kumar for calling the top court’s observations as “irresponsible, illegal and unfair”.

“I have gone through your request seeking consent to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt against Justice (retd) Dhingra, Lekhi and Kumar. I find that the statements made by three persons, who are in the realm of fair comment, on a hearing conducted by the Supreme Court,” the AG wrote. “The statements are not vituperative or abusive nor are they likely to interfere with the administration of justice by the Supreme Court. It may be noted that the Supreme Court, in a large number of judgments, has held that fair and reasonable criticism of judicial proceedings would not constitute contempt of court,” Venugopal wrote.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement