![]() Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Kerala
By Our Staff Reporter
The petition was filed under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act seeking the consent of the Advocate General for moving a contempt of court petition against the Speaker before the High Court. In his petition, Joy Kaitharam, journalist, pointed out that the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, had issued summons to the Speaker to produce a copy of the fax message purportedly sent in the name of Ahmed Patel, AICC general secretary in charge of the Kerala affairs, to the Speaker. However, according to the petitioner, the response and comments made by the Speaker was highly contemptuous. It had been made with a mala fide intention to scandalise and lower the authority of law, he alleged. On an earlier occasion when an Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, had issued summons requesting the Speaker to produce the Assembly documents, he had promptly complied with the directive, the petitioner pointed out. The copy of the fax message in question was not a document placed before the Assembly. So, a copy of the fax message did not have the character of' "a privileged document'', according to the petitioner. Besides, the imputations were not made by the Speaker in the House. Therefore, he could not claim privilege or immunity as provided under Article 194 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the Constitution did not place any bar on the judiciary in issuing summons to the Speaker. The instruction given by the Speaker to the Legislative Secretary not to accept summons was illegal, the petitioner said. The petitioner alleged that the Speaker had made his remarks with oblique motive. So, it was highly necessary to take cognisance for the contempt of court against the Speaker and punish him to uphold the dignity of the court. Hence, the petitioner pleaded for the Advocate General's sanction to file contempt petition before the court.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|