Not providing then one appeal against their conviction / detention
Violation of rights under Article 14 (5) of ICCPR xx by not providing then one appeal against their conviction/detention as per law laid down by the Supreme Court and by United Nations Human Rights Committee of 17 members including Justice P.N. Bhagwati from India, that if such appeal is not provided, then it will entitle the victim to get compensation and government is bound to pay the compensation even if the case is under contempt taken by the Supreme Court. [Anthony Michael Emmanuel Fernando Vs Srilanka 2005 SCC OnLine HRC 22, Luis Hens Serena and Juan Ramon Carujo Rodriguez vs Spain 2008 SCC OnLine HRC 20, Chota Ratiani Vs. Georgia 2005 SCC OnLine HRC 25, Luis Olivero Vs Spain 2006 SCC Online HRC 42] 13.1. Article 14 (5) of ICCPR reads thus;
“14(5). Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
That, the ratio laid down in a recent judgment of Five – Judge Bench of UK Supreme Court in the case of Her Majesty’s Attorney General Vs. Crossland [2021] USKC 58, support the prayers of the petitioners. There it is held that the person convicted by the Supreme Court under contempt in its original jurisdiction had a right of one appeal before larger benches
Similar is the ratio laid down in the case of Madav Haskot Vs. State (1978) 3 SCC 544 & Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotal Mahindra Co. Ltd. (2007) 6 SCC 528
a 17-Judge Bench of United Nations Human Rights Committee comprising Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the case of Anthony Michael Emmanuel Fernando v. Sri Lanka, 2005 SCC OnLine HRC 22 had strongly condemned the conviction of imprisonment in contempt by the Chief justice of the Supreme Court of Srilanka and declared it to be arbitrary, draconian and inappropriate and violative of Art. 9 of ICCPR. The committee in many such cases had directed the State authority to pay compensation to the citizen and provide them an appellate jurisdiction against the conviction by the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction. The other landmark judgments are; (i) Luis Hens Serena v. Spain, 2008 SCC OnLine HRC 20 (ii) Chota Ratiani Vs. Georgia 2005 SCC OnLine HRC 25 (Para 11.3 & 12). (iii) Luis Olivero Capellades Vs. Spain 2006 SCC OnLine HRC 42 (Para 7 & 8)
Sanyal Committee report (Annex-P-1) on basis of which Contempt of Courts Act,1971 had been made, had taken a refrence of the observations of Shawcross Committee which is as under ; “…….. in every system of law of any civilized State, there is always a right of appeal against any sentence of imprisonment”. There is no justification whatsoever for making any exception to this universally recognised principle in the case of sentences for contempt.”