17.55 noxious smoke chemical fumes released nonstop into Rajokri premises by @DelhiPolice in attempt to murder #FCPA #GE $GE whistleblower Seema Sapra, can't breathe, pain, squeezing in heart, burning in abdomen, lungs, airways, on lips, in eyes, on skin, chemical burns in mouth

15.53 pesticides, solvents, corrosive fumes, and chemical fumes causing loss of consciousness being released into Rajokri premises of $GE #GE #MeToo📷 #FCPA whistleblower Seema Sapra causing pain, squeezing in heart, burning in eyes, I cannot breathe.

The Conviction and Sentencing of Opposition Politician Rahul Gandhi for the Offence of Criminal Defamation

The Surat Court Judgment convicting opposition politician Rahul Gandhi for criminal defamation for remarks which can by no stretch of imagination be called criminal defamation of the complainant in the case, and sentencing him for the maximum period of two years imprisonment resulting in his automatic and immediate disqualification from the Indian Parliament is the most recent high profile example of how Indian Courts and law enforcement agencies like the Police are being misused to attack our guaranteed fundamental right of freedom of speech in India.

The judgment can be read at https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/gjsr02020313201912023-03-23-464960.pdf

This judgment is in Gujarati. So one must wait for a translation into English to engage with it. 

A preliminary point: 

Rahul Gandhi does not speak Gujarati. Were the Court Proceedings carried out in Gujarati? Should a man be convicted by a Judgment in a language he does not understand. The Magistrate speaks English, The Judgment contains quotes in English from judicial precedents, Why should the Judgment not have been written in English then? 

How Indian Courts and law enforcement agencies like the Police are being misused to attack our guaranteed fundamental right of freedom of speech in India

The Judicial system in India right from the district courts to the constitutional High Courts and the Supreme Court has failed to protect the guaranteed fundamental right to freedom of speech of Indian citizens. 

The Courts and the Police are being used to imprison people for speaking and expressing views that ought not to be prohibited. This has become rampant. 

The Surat Court Judgment convicting opposition politician Rahul Gandhi for criminal defamation for remarks which can by no stretch of imagination be called criminal defamation of the complainant in the case, and sentencing him for the maximum period of two years imprisonment resulting in his automatic and immediate disqualification from the Indian Parliament is the most recent high profile example of this growing trend.  The judgment can be read at https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/gjsr02020313201912023-03-23-464960.pdf

The Contempt of Court conviction of former DSP Balwinder Singh Sekhon

A former Police Officer of Punjab Balwinder Singh Sekhon was on 24 February 2023 convicted for Contempt of Court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. 

See reports at https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/contempt-of-court-punjab-and-haryana-high-court-sentences-dismissed-punjab-dgp-bs-sekhon-aide-6months-jail-222410 

and 

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/punjab-haryana-high-court-orders-arrest-dismissed-dsp-balwinder-singh-sekhon-circulated-derogatory-videos-against-judges-222055

A whistleblower of sorts, DSP Sekhon had taken on politicians, bureaucrats, police officers in his battles against corruption and the drug mafia in Punjab.  With a visible presence on YouTube, Sekhon had also criticized the Judiciary and its handling of drug mafia cases. 

On  15 February 2023, Sekhon was issued a Contempt of Court notice by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. On 20 February, the High Court at Chandigarh issued a warrant of arrest for Sekhon and his aide in the suo moto contempt case. Sekhon was arrested the same day and produced before the High Court on 24 Fenruary 2023. 

Sekhon was extremely blunt in his criticism of Judges in his YouTube videos. His use of language was not guarded and there is little doubt that he crossed the line for criminal contempt drawn in the contempt of Courts Act, with truth being his only defence. 

But in this short note, I comment on the handling of his contempt hearing by the Chandigarh High Court on 24 February 2023. There was little media coverage and all I found was one Twitter account describing what transpired in Court, Sekhon was presented in Police custody before the Court, he appeared without a lawyer, he asked the Court to appoint a particular lawyer for him whom he named, Sekhon denied his guilt, and he asked for time to file a written reply. 

The Chandigarh High Court convicted and sentenced Sekhon of Contempt of Court the same day, i,e., on 24 February 2023 and he was taken into custody and sent to prison for six months from the Court itself.  So the Chandigarh High Court convicted and sentenced Sekhon without giving him an opportunity to file a reply, without providing him legal representation, and without giving him a proper hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He was also ordered to be arrested immediately. and the sentence was not suspended to allow him to exercise his statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. 

As of 20 March 2023, no appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court on behalf of Balwinder Singh Sekhon. 

Whatever be the circumstances, a man ought not to be imprisoned without a hearing, without a lawyer and without an opportunity to reply to the charges against him. Even Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act enjoins upon the Court to give a person charged with Contempt "an opportunity to make his defence to the charge" and to afford him a hearing. The Chandigarh High Court failed to do so in its conviction and sentencing of Balwinder Singh Sekhon.  The failure of the Chandigarh High Court in giving Sekhon a proper hearing with legal representation after an opportunity to file a written reply has violated his fundamental right to natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court failed to follow the procedure established by law before convicting and sentencing Sekhon and this violates his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Of all cases, it is Contempt of Court cases where allegations made against Judges are the cause of action, that it becomes morally imperative that the Court hearing criminal contempt charges scrupulously follow the procedure established by law and afford full natural justice rights to the accused. This is necessary not just to uphold the sanctity of due process and the rule of law, but also to accord legitimacy to the judicial process and the judicial verdict. 

Commentary on Delhi High Court Judgment dated 16 March 2023 in Parnita Kapoor versus Arvind Malik under the Contempt of Courts Act

Should a man be convicted for contempt of court and sent to prison for six months for failing to pay money in compliance with a Court order? 

In a Judgment dated 16 March 2023, Justice Mamneet Pritam Singh Arora of the High Court of Delhi has sent a lawyer to prison for six months for failing to comply with Court directions to pay rent arrears in a tenancy dispute. 

Read the Judgment at https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2023-03/a9f127b5-f312-46c7-831f-63969b22b591/Parnita_Kapoor_v_Arvind_Malik.pdf 

Even though it appears that the lawyer had defaulted in complying with Court directions to pay rent arrears, the larger question arises as to whether a party should be sentenced to prison for six months under the Contempt of Courts Act for failing to pay moneys owed. What purpose will such an order of imprisonment serve in securing the payments due? Should a man be imprisoned for such default or would the better course have been to take steps for recovery of the moneys due under Civil Law including as arrears of land revenue. 

Other concerns that the Judgment gives rise to -

In sending the Party to Prison for six months, the Court has ignored the mandate if Section 12(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act which states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.". The Law itself provides that a sentence of imprisonment for a civil contempt is extraordinary and requires special reasons, and even then the detention must be in a civil prison. 

The Judgment orders the immediate imprisonment of the lawyer without providing an opportunity to appeal the ruling before the lawyer is taken into custody. Normally and properly, such judgments should state that the sentence will stand suspended for a period of three months to enable a statutory appeal under the Contempt of Courts Act. A statutory appeal is an appeal by right. Every Court order can in theory be legally flawed hence the right of appeal is a valuable and indispensable right. The judgment ignores this right of appeal. Further once incarcerated, the lawyer will certainly not be able to exercise his remedies including his right of appeal as effectively as he would be able to do otherwise. 

The Judgment fails to adequately record the defence if any of the Party. There is some passing reference to the Party's claim of financial inability to pay and to the Party's position that the orders determining the amounts due were wrong and that the amounts determined as due are incorrect, and that the Party was not adequately represented by Counsel when these orders were passed. The Judgment adopts a technical position that the previous orders were not appealed against. But in my view, before sending a man to prison for six months, the Court ought to have considered these defences in detail and should have attempted to arrive at the truth of these defences. 

In the Judgment, the Court also refers to a statement in an earlier order that the lawyer was carrying on the business of paying guest accommodation in the rented premises in contravention of the prohibition in the Advocates Act. The Judgment directs the Bar Council to take action against the lawyer and to file a report within four weeks on the action initiated, Once again, this direction in the judgment coupled with the immediate imprisonment of the Party causes grave prejudice because it directs punitive action against the Party, while simultaneously preventing the Party from availing his legal remedies by directing his immediate imprisonment. The overall impression one should get from a Court Judgment is one of justice and fair play. And this Judgment fails to convey that and instead leaves one with a sense of unease. 

One glaring fact that stands out and which the Court makes no mention of is that the main story played out during the Covid pandemic and lockdowns. The Covid lockdowns obviously affected the Paying Guest business and the ability of the Party to pay rent. Yet the Court does not take this into consideration. 

In paragraph 24 the Court sets out its reasoning for sentencing the Party to imprisonment for six months. It states "This Court is of the opinion that if the Respondent is not met with the consequences of the wilful default and breach on the orders and undertakings given to this Court, it will embolden him to similarly abuse the process of law in future and victimize fellow citizens on the belief that the sanctity of orders passed by the Court need not be protected and honored. This is a fit case where any leniency shown by the Court will be misunderstood as weakness."

With great respect, the reasoning of the Court in paragraph 24 is flawed. The Court simply assumes that the Party will abuse and victimise others in the future and states that the Court cannot be considered as weak. Once again, the Court fails to determine the real reasons for failure to pay and also fails to appreciate that the objective is not to punish the Party or to assert the strength of the Court but to arrive at a fair and just decision and to use the law to facilitate the payment of dues to the extent possible. 

Paragraph 29 of the Judgment reads as follows: 

"It is further directed that if in future, the Respondent herein similarly fails to comply with orders of the Court in any legal proceedings where he is a party, the record of the present contempt petition shall be read in evidence and the subsequent conduct will be considered as an aggravated contempt of the Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is directed that the Respondent herein will be under an obligation to disclose this order to the Court in which any subsequent contempt proceedings is filed against him."

The observations and directions in Paragraph 29 of the Judgment are baffling. Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act does not talk of aggravated contempt.  That provision defines criminal contempt which is an entirely different offence from the civil contempt which was in issue in the instant case. The observations in paragraph 29 also violate Article 20 of the Constitution of India and the fundamental right against double jeopardy as codified in that Article which interalia guarantees that "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once". This tendency to brand the Contemnor forever that is often found in Contempt of Court decisions is incorrect as judged on the anvil of law, justice and fair play.

Overall the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated March 16, 2023 in Parnita Kapoor versus Arvind Malik does not read like a fair, just and objective resolution of the dispute and creates a sense of unease with the manner in which the contempt power of the Court itself causes grave prejudice to a Party. 

The question of imprisonment for a civil debt itself raises questions of fundamental rights and human rights. The global trend is against imprisonment for failure to pay a civil debt. In its decision in Ramasamy vs Pushpa, the Madras High Court on 13 March, 2017 considered these issues and clarified that "Now, it is firmly settled that even in an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 37 C.P.C., simply because the decree holder wishes that the judgment debtor should be made to count the bars of a Civil prison on account of his inability to pay the decree debt, the Court could not send the debtor to jail unless he has current ability to clear off the debt or he has malafide refusal or he has some other vice or mens rea apart from his failure to foot the decree."

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Parnita Kapoor has sent a man to prison for six months simply for failure to pay a civil debt. The Court made no inquiry into the means of the Party, into his current ability to pay the debt, and into the reasons for his failure to pay the debt. The Court simply assumed wilful default and sent the Party to prison for six months. 

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Parnita Kapoor is against the spirit of Article 11of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights which states that - No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. The Delhi High Court in Parnita Kapoor also failed to carry out the balancing mandated by the Supreme Court of India in its decision in Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs The Bank Of Cochin on 4 February, 1980 {1980 AIR 470, 1980 SCR (2) 913{ between the provisions providing for imprisonment for failure to pay a civil debt and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) plagued by Conflict of Interest of its Office Bearers

Lawyer Maninder Singh, one of the Government nominees on the DDCA Management Committee disqualified by conflict of interest, yet appointed. 

How did Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who is closest to Jaitley & family become a Government of India nominee on the DDCA Apex Council. Clear conflict of interest. A Government nominee should be independent, Maninder Singh, Arun Jaitley's former junior is like family to Rohan Jaitley, the DDCA President. Sports Minister Anurag Thakur must answer.

How did retired Supreme Court of India Judge  Ms. Indu Malhotra get appointed as ombudsperson of DDCA when she is very close to the late Arun Jaitley's family. Apparently Rohan Jaitley the DDCA President calls Ms. Indu Malhotra 'Bua' (Father's Sister) or Aunt. Once again this is a case of clear conflict of interest.