Daijiworld Media Network – Bangalore (SP)

Bangalore, Nov 12: In a significant verdict delivered on Thursday November 11, the state High Court held that the laws pertaining to contempt of court were brought into force to ensure that the dignity of the judiciary is not compromised. It asserted that the private lives of the judges cannot be protected under these provisions.

A division bench of the High Court comprising Justice N Kumar and Justice Arali Nagaraj, which dismissed separate contempt of court petitions filed by the son and wife of a judge, said that using these provisions for private affairs of judges is not right, noting that the laws were provided with the specific intention of enabling the judges to conduct court proceedings without any fear.

A final year law student named Phaniraj Kashyap, who was a student of M S Ramaiah College here in 2009, had secured 18 marks in a subject, and therefore, failed. A couple of newspapers had published reports as to how Bangalore University threw all the rules to winds to allot 65 marks to this student to ensure that he passes the degree examination.

During verification of the facts in these reports, the bench observed that what the reports carried were true. Kashyap’s marks were published even before a valuator was allotted for the revaluation of his answer sheet. The revised marks were announced on May 5, 2009, but a valuator was allotted for reviewing his marks only on May 13. As against over 3,000 applications for revaluation received by the university, only revaluation was done for only this candidate. Both Kashyap and his mother sought to get protection under the provisions of contempt of court laws, being the family members of a judge.

During the hearing, the petitioners had argued that the vice chancellor of the university had used special powers for the revaluation of the boy’s answer sheet, as he was inclined to enter postgraduate course. However, during verification, it was found that during the last five years, the vice chancellor had not used this power even once.

The division bench pointed out that Kashyap is the son of a judge and that it was also true that the revaluation exercise had been marred by deficiencies. “How under these circumstances, contempt of court comes into play?” it questioned. The judges also commented that the time is ripe to consider how the judges and their family members should behave, by not crossing their limits.