Contempt Jurisdiction IX

We are of the view, contemnor is clearly guilty of contempt. His actions to scandalize the Court cannot be countenanced. He continues with his contumacious behavior. The apologies submitted by him are only endeavors to get out of consequences, again followed by another set of allegations. Thus, a charade. The last apology can hardly be called an apology.

“An apology can be accepted in case conduct for which apology is given is such it can be ignored without compromising dignity of Court.” – Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., (2011) 7 SCC 776.

There is, as already stated, no remorse on the part of contemnor which we find in present case.

Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Suraz India Trust v. Union of India, [Miscellaneous Application No. 1630 of 2020].