Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Petitioner Uses Vulgar Language In VC Hearing: Bombay High Court Shows 'Judicial Grace & Magnanimity' To Avoid Issuing Contempt Notice

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
7 Jan 2021 4:05 PM GMT
Petitioner Uses Vulgar Language In VC Hearing: Bombay High Court Shows Judicial Grace & Magnanimity To Avoid Issuing Contempt Notice
x

A Division Bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice MS Karnik of the Bombay High Court expressed difficulty in proceeding with the hearing of a case pertaining to the Malegaon Blast case as the Petitioner therein used vulgar and abusive words during the virtual hearing. The Court was adjudicating upon a writ petition filed by Dr. Sarita Kishor Parikh and Glenn Paul Fernandez. During...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

A Division Bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice MS Karnik of the Bombay High Court expressed difficulty in proceeding with the hearing of a case pertaining to the Malegaon Blast case as the Petitioner therein used vulgar and abusive words during the virtual hearing.

The Court was adjudicating upon a writ petition filed by Dr. Sarita Kishor Parikh and Glenn Paul Fernandez.

During the Video Conference, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), JP Yagnik, had submitted before the Bench that the record of investigation and enquiry needed to be brought before the Court.

He insisted that the same may be presented over a physical hearing as the records run into a number of pages and since the investigation is under way, they should not be sent by email. He also pointed out that the petitioners had, without his knowledge or consent, requested for a virtual hearing of the matters.

It was at this juncture that the Petitioner No. 2, Glenn Paul Fernandez, rudely interrupted the proceedings and started using vulgar and abusive language while addressing the Court.

He stated that the Bombay High Court had "destroyed them" and that the two petitioners were "not ready to come to the Court for physical hearing." Moreover, he remarked that if the matter was not heard by the Court through video conferencing, he would "espouse his cause through media".

The Court was requested by the Public Prosecutor to imitate contempt proceedings against Fernandez however, the bench chose to show "show judicial grace and magnanimity" and refrained from issuing the notice.

Nevertheless, the Judges observed that it would be "impossible" to proceed with the hearing virtually, for two reasons:

"Firstly, in case petitioner No.2 is allowed to argue, he would continue his arguments in vulgar and abusive language and secondly, as rightly submitted by the learned APP, the enquiry / investigation papers which, according to him, are running into a number of pages and since the investigation is in progress, it would not be desirable to send the same by e-mail."

The Court has thus listed this matter for a physical hearing on 29th January, 2021.

Case Title: Dr. Sarita Parikh & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order


Next Story
Share it