Monday 23 March 2009

Joote do.. relief lo

Ms. Sarida Parikh had thrown her sandal at Justice Pasayat. It was reported in newspapers as having been hurled at the bench comprising of Justice Pasayat and Justice Ganguly. But, as it turns out, the Bench had no misconceptions about who the target was.

While Justice Pasayat was of the opinion that the actions of Ms. Sarida Parikh and 3 others amounted to contempt which could be immediately punished by the Court, Justice Ganguly felt that even though the conduct amounted to contempt, the same could not have been punished without complying with the procedure laid down in the Contempt of Courts Act.

So, the matter was referred to a 3 Judge Bench to decide the difference in opinion. While the contemnors were languishing in Judicial custody over the weekend, sufficient excitement had built up in the Bar regarding further proceedings in the case.

The case was listed today at 2 p.m. before a Bench comprising of Justice B.N. Agarwal, Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu. At 1:45, the Court-room was full, and the buzz in the Court seemed straight out of a Court-room drama from Hollywood.

2 p.m. - In walked Justice Singhvi, followed by a smiling Justice Agarwal, and as Justice Dattu stumbled on the last step leading into the Court room, most of the crowd.. er... lawyers, were smiling as well.

The ladies walked into the packed Court room amidst tight security, and you could feel the excitement in the air. 5 minutes later, the Court had unceremoniously ordered that the Special Leave Petitions and the Writ Petitions filed by the ladies would be heard along with the Contempt Petitions, and the 4 contemnors would be released on Bail immediately.

Today chivalry was going to be the order of the day, and no lady would walk out of the Court bare foot.

4 comments:

  1. Legally speaking, today's order is of a lot of significance. Usually, matters are referred to larger Benches with specific questions framed for them to decide. In this case, the larger Bench suo motu decided that it would hear the Special Leave Petitions and the Writ Petitions along with the Contempt Petition. Is that legal for a larger Bench to do?

    ReplyDelete
  2. erm...perv...are you posing as someone else for the commenting bit? :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. hehe.. it was only a one-off comment, because the legal insight didn't seem to gel with the general tenor of the post. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. The difference of opinion between the honourable judges may be expected: Justice Pasayat has had it all and is due to retire, while Justice Ganguly still has a career left and has to be cautious about public opinion. BTW, I thought it was a settled matter that no victim can adjudicate a wrong done to him. This case seems different?

    ReplyDelete