Hyderabad High Court detains advocate for contempt
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday detained an advocate under the Contempt of Courts Act for his utterances after dismissal of a PIL by a division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice. He was however released on bail later.
G.L. Narasimha Rao, a practicing advocate of the High Court, moved a PIL as a party-in-person seeking to declare as illegal the suppression of facts by authorities of both the states with regard to fixation of entry fee in cinema theatres and also their failure in bringing the settled law and citations before the single judge.
He told the court that the failure of the authorities was causing burden of thousands of crores of rupees on the public and it was supporting individual unjust enrichment, and damaging the image of the High Court.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter which was dealing with the case asked the petitioner how a PIL was maintainable against the orders of a single judge.
He said that against some of the orders, he filed applications seeking leave to prefer appeals which were pending.
The bench noted that an order of a single judge in a writ can be set aside either in an intra-court appeal or in a petition seeking review thereof.
Making it clear that it was impermissible for any Court to examine the validity of a judicial order in collateral or independent legal proceedings, the bench dismissed the PIL.
Soon after the dismissal of the PIL, the advocate said, “It is because of orders, such as the one the bench now passed, that people are losing faith in the judiciary.”
Reacting to the statement of the advocate, the bench said: “This statement of the petitioner, in our view, amounts to interference with the administration of justice, and is contempt in the face of the court under the Contempt of Courts Act.”
While issuing a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, the bench directed the advocate to submit his defence to the charge within four weeks.
The bench directed that the Registrar (Judicial) to forthwith have the contemnor detained in custody till he submited his reply.
Later the bench directed the Registrar to release the advocate on bail directing him to furnish a personal bond of '25,000 to the Registrar with two sureties with an undertaking to attend the court till completion of the contempt proceedings.
