Could it be taking matters for discussion or otherwise while a trial goes on, is contempt of court? How about matters which have been adjudicated and verdict given, should such matters still be considered as sub judice, and hence no discussion? I am no lawyer, except that, during the course of my service life, I had occasions to act within the ambit of legal jurisprudence. It is a good gambit to threaten ordinary citizens with "contempt of court" to curb any discussion on the subject. There have been a number of cases where the verdict has been acquital because of reasonable doubt, while the persons concerned may have been guilty and vice versa. Mr. Ujjwal Nikam should thank God, that his mamoth task of prosecuting 100 people in TADA court is over. Whether or not the Court acted within the precincts of laws of natural justice is a matter of law students to consider in their pursuit of an LLB degree. To me, what Mr. Nikam states is just to create fear in ordinary citizens.
