Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt
 
 
« From the Courts »
  SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
 Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. (Formerly Known As(M/s Samvardhana Motherson Finance Ltd.)a Vs. Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. M/s Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 Ram Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-64(2) & Anr.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Vs. St Microelectronics Private Ltd.
  The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs. ESPN Software India Ltd.
 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,
 ITO vs. Gymkhana Club (ITAT Chandigarh)
 SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)

Reckless remarks will weaken judiciary, says Supreme Court
December, 09th 2011

Making reckless remarks or comments against the judiciary would weaken the institution, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday.

During the resumed hearing of a contempt case against advocate Prashant Bhushan and Tehelka, Justice Altamas Kabir, who was on a three-judge Bench, told counsel: The judiciary has withstood all kinds of pressure and has remained a strong pillar of democracy. No one stands for this institution. If this institution is corroded, it will not be good for the country. The judge further observed: This is one pillar which is still strong. To run down an institution saying there is massive corruption in the judiciary won't help us. This will only weaken the institution.

The Bench, after hearing amicus curiae Harish Salve, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and Shanti Bhushan, and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, decided to examine three questions and, if necessary, refer them for adjudication by a five-judge Constitution Bench.

The questions are: Will the expression of a bona fide opinion about the extent of corruption in any section of the judiciary amount to contempt of court? Can comments alleging corruption in the judiciary be justified as an expression of opinion protected by Article 19 (1) (a) and will the person who expresses such an opinion be obliged to establish the truth of the allegations which he bona fide and reasonably believed to be true?

Transparency

It was Mr. Bhushan's contention that the truth of the statements made was a complete defence against contempt. Further, transparency being the cornerstone of democracy, people had a right to know about everything. Section 13 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act (it says the court may permit, in any proceedings for contempt, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide) in its present form was constitutionally invalid as it was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, Mr. Bhushan argued.

The Bench, which included Justices Cyriac Joseph and H.L. Dattu, posted further hearing to January 4, 2012.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions