A-G declines consent to initiate contempt case against ex-judge, others over comments on Nupur Sharma case

Attorney General K K Venugopal has declined consent to initiate contempt proceedings against former Delhi High Court judge, Justice S N Dhingra, ex-Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi and senior advocate K Rama Kumar for their comments against the Supreme Court's remarks made in the Nupur Sharma case.

"The statements made by the three persons are in the realm of fair comments...the statements are not vituperative or abusive, nor are they likely to interfere with the administration of justice by the Supreme Court," he said.

Responding to a letter by advocate C R Jaya Sukin, Venugopal said the Supreme Court in a large number of judgements has held that fair and reasonable criticism of a judicial proceedings would not constitute contempt of court.

Read | Nupur Sharma and the question of oral observations in court

"I am not satisfied that the criticism made by the three persons is with malice or is an attempt to impair the administration of justice or that it was a deliberate and motivated attempt to bring down the image of judiciary," he said, declining consent to initiate contempt proceedings.

Under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court 1975, a consent from the Attorney General is mandatory to initiate criminal contempt proceedings before the top court.

The top court had on July 1 also said Sharma's loose tongue has set the entire country on fire and her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident at Udaipur, related to the brutal killing of a tailor, Kanhaiya Lal, on June 29.

In his letter, the lawyer claimed all the three persons had caused "irreparable injuries to Indian judiciary and the nation by unparliamentary statements and derogatory remarks, which falls within the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971".

He also claimed that the statements by the three persons and their publication scandalised the Supreme Court, prejudiced and interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice.

The advocate claimed that the three persons insulted the Supreme Court, and not only cast aspersions on the integrity of the top court but also attempted to scandalise the nation's highest judiciary.