Today, On 7th March, The Supreme Court is set to issue comprehensive directions for enforcing the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. The case stems from a writ petition by the Indian Medical Association (IMA). The IMA seeks action against misleading advertisements promoting allopathic medicines. The ruling aims to curb false medical claims and protect public health.
The Delhi High Court warned the Delhi Jal Board of contempt for not following its orders on sewage treatment plants (STPs). The court said that even after clear instructions to install flow meters at discharge points in all 37 STPs, the board did not take it seriously. Dirty water is still being released into the Yamuna, breaking court rules. Calling the situation “completely not acceptable,” the court showed strong disapproval.
Google is facing contempt of court for not removing a defamatory video about the Dhyan Foundation, even after orders from the Bombay High Court and Magistrate Court. The foundation says Google misled the Mumbai Sessions Court by falsely claiming the video was taken down, while proof shows it is still online. Google’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, admitted there are difficulties in following the court’s order, raising questions about Google’s respect for Indian courts. A contempt notice has been sent to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and the hearing is set for January 3.
The Supreme Court of India summoned Delhi’s Chief Secretary for a December 19 appearance due to inadequate enforcement of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. The court threatened contempt action if compliance with prior orders isn’t reported. Concerns extend to air quality management, urging immediate government action on pollution sources, including stubble burning.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed advocate Arun Mishra’s plea alleging bias against Gujarat HC Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, deeming it frivolous and without merit. The Court emphasized that contempt proceedings require Advocate General consent and clarified that Mishra’s claims did not constitute criminal contempt, underscoring the need to prevent frivolous petitions.
Former locomotive pilot, PU Venkatesan, was convicted of criminal contempt for making scandalous allegations against judges. The Madras High Court sentenced him to six months in prison for displaying no remorse and verbally abusing the judges. His behavior was found to be contemptuous towards the entire justice system. This followed a Facebook post and subsequent letters making reckless allegations.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a contempt case against the Advocate General and Additional Advocate General due to procedural irregularities. The case arose from alleged misconduct during a virtual hearing. The court stressed the importance of upholding decorum in legal proceedings and highlighted the need for adherence to procedural guidelines. The dismissal drew attention to maintaining the rule of law in court.
The Karnataka High Court, yesterday, On 23rd April, issued notices to 44 government bodies, including the State of Karnataka, due to non-compliance with court orders, sparking interest and raising questions. The move signifies a significant legal development that will be closely monitored. The petition calls for timely enforcement of court orders and punitive action against officials for intentional delays, aiming to uphold public trust in the judicial system.
The Karnataka High Court is proposing an amendment to its rules to give the Chief Justice the power to suspend advocates involved in court boycotts. This is part of the “rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto (Amendment) Rules, 2024.” Additionally, the Grievance Redressal Committee will address grievances related to strikes and boycotts by advocates.
The Delhi High Court (HC) held an individual in contempt for using a forged document to cut down a tree, emphasizing the importance of legal compliance in environmental matters. The court’s decision underscores the consequences of fraudulent actions and the imperative of obeying court orders. The case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding environmental laws.