Hydrogen has a bum rap. One spectacular disaster a hundred years ago and nobody wants to be your friend anymore. That all changed in the mid-2000s as we realized that conventional batteries were just not worth it. So we embraced hydrogen.  This is the LowTech Podcast. Hello and welcome to the fourth episode of our new season. I'm Scott Johnson from the Low Technology Institute. Your host for podcast number 75 on January 26th 2024. Welcome to the new year. Coming to you from the LowTech Recording Booth. Thanks for joining us. We're jumping back in our DeLorean Time Machine this week. And going to Cooksville in the year 2100. Today we're diving into our use of hydrogen for home and commercial energy. Don't bother following us on Twitter, X or whatever it's called right now. We don't live there anymore. But you can still like us on Facebook, find us on Instagram, subscribe to us on YouTube and check out our website lowtechinstitute.org. There you can find both of our podcasts as well as information about joining and supporting the Institute and its research. Also you know the spiel about advertising on podcasts. If I'm not doing the ad someone else is getting paid. We put out all of our content for free. But if you're in a position to help support our work and be part of this community please do consider becoming a monthly supporter for as little as three bucks a month through our Patreon page. That's patreon.com slash lowtechinstitute. Supporters do get the podcasts a week early so that is something. Another way to support us is to donate your used car. If you're in the US contact us for details. Back in 2020 if I were to have told you that a hydrogen that I have a hydrogen plant and storage in my basement you'd think I'm crazy. That's because of this. Starting to rain again and rain has cracked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it. Just enough to keep it from the person to fly. Get it started. Get it started. Get it started. It's crashing. It's crashing. Terrible. Oh my. Get out of the way please. It's burning, bursting into flames and it's falling on the morning fast and all the folks between the business is terrible.  Oh it's like 20 or 400 or 500 feet into the sky. It is a terrific race. Ladies and gentlemen, the smoke and the slaves now and the flame is rising to the ground. Not quite to the morning mass of the humanity. All the fans are just feeding around here. I don't do it. I can't even talk to people. They're all there. I can't talk ladies and gentlemen. Honestly, just laying down mass and smoking ruckus and everybody can't hardly breathe and talking screaming. Lady, I'm sorry. Honestly, I can hardly breathe. I'm going to step inside while I cannot see it. I'm sorry. That's terrible. I can't. I'm going to have to stop for a minute because I have lots of voices and wish I could have ever met her. That is the voice of Herb Morrison famously narrating the collapse and burning of the airship Hindenburg in 1937 in Manchester Township, New Jersey. This is this just one disaster spell the end of long distance airship travel as well as stymie the adoption of hydrogen as a residential and commercial fuel source. And while hydrogen systems can fail catastrophically, we need only to look at archival videos from the 1900s and early 2000s to see the Ben Issue coal mine explosion create oil fires, piper alpha disaster and thousands of smaller accidents to know that any time we have compressed a huge amount of energy into a small volso package, we have to be careful. Unlike however, fossil fuels and nuclear power, the actual use of hydrogen is ecologically benign. Burning hydrogen produces water vapor instead of belching carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have been sequestered in ancient carbon for millennia. And although water vapor is technically a greenhouse gas, hydrogen production uses H2O that was already in circulation, which means it's not contributing new gases to global warming or the atmosphere. It does not produce spent fuel rods or depend on refining uranium out of tons of ore. It does not require dangerous, expensive or complex wells or refineries. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth and harnessing the energy needed to bond and unbonded to oxygen has been transformative. All molecules are held together with atomic bonds. Typically, energy is lost when atoms combine into molecules and the reverse is also true when those molecules are cracked apart. Today, we depend on the dividing of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen to store energy for later use. If you're watching on YouTube, you can see my illustration right here. So from basic chemistry, we know that oxygen is to short to electrons. So it often joins forces with other oxygen atoms to create plain breathable oxygen or O2. Hydrogen is only one electron short of a happy stable existence. So it often pairs up with another hydrogen making H2. Sometimes an oxygen atom also likes to grab two little hydrogen atoms to create our favorite squirt gun ammunition, water or H2O. Just as when two magnets might snap when they combine, creating noise, these three atoms give off energy in the form of heat when they combine together. You might remember this equation from school to H2 plus O2 equals to H2O and energy. This is an equation with a double arrow, which indicates, of course, that the relationship is reversible. By adding energy back into liquid water, it disassociates returning to hydrogen and oxygen gases. That energy is essentially stored in the now disparate components of water. Imagine holding two magnets just apart from one another. The pull towards each other is energy waiting to happen. Let go of one magnet and it moves. A spark gives the hydrogen and oxygen atoms an excuse to blow off their excess energy in the form of a flame as they recombine into water. This back and forth of the hydrogen oxygen water cycle fuels sectors of our economy that need on demand power and or can't be plugged into a stationary power source. But before we get into the end uses, let's look first at how we generate and store this energy. Just as our electricity generation is focused at the point of use, hydrogen production is dispersed and small scale with just a few exceptions. The simplest high gens, which is what we call our hydrogen generators, high gens use excess electricity to create gas through electrolysis shown again in the figure on the screen here, along with its larger scale cousins. So although this is not the most efficient method, it is simple. The dead simplest version is an alkaline electrolyzer. Imagine a drum of water with a plastic divider in either side of the drum is an electrode coated in nickel to the water has been added either potassium hydroxide that's koH sometimes known as caustic potash or sodium hydroxide or NaOH sometimes known as lye. And this is the more common of the two because it can be made at home with ashes and has lots of other uses. Anyway, little bubbles are beating off of each of the electrodes as DC power is fed into the system. The positive anode creates oxygen gas and the negative cathode creates hydrogen gas. The only things that must be brought in for these high or bought in for these high gens are the membrane, which passes ions back and forth but blocks the mixing of the produced gases. Oh, and we also have to buy the nickel plated electrodes, which are formed to create maximum surface area. The downside of this method is that it takes more electric energy to create the gas because it has to phase change the liquid to a gas among other small frictions in the process. It results in only 83% of the energy being converted. But these are the home versions made to just kind of swap up a bit of excess electric power that might otherwise go into a battery on a sunny or windy day. Small shops, factories or drivers with a need of more constant supply of hydrogen had the stepped up version of the home hydrogen instead of a barrel of alkaline water with electrodes suspended in it. These generators have the electrodes held above the surface of the liquid connected to a porous membrane drawing the electrolyte up to contact the electrodes much like a candle draws molten wax up its wick. The water is quickly converted into oxygen hydrogen gases without the underwater bubbles causing what is essentially a traffic jam on the electrodes. This method is much more efficient converting up to 98% of the electric energy. These generators depend on imported parts and dedicated power sources, which vary based on their need factories that function in the day generally use solar power directly. While those that need stored hydrogen for transport use wind or micro hydro for power. Another option for the mid level producers is a photo electro chemical water splitting or a PEC cell a PEC cell is similar to an old fashioned photovoltaic solar solar panel sunlight hits a thin film semiconductor which converts the energy to hydrogen instead of electricity. These semiconductor this semiconductor is housed in a series of vertical tubes with the oxygen generated on one side and the hydrogen on another when mounted vertically or an angle like a solar panel. The gases bubble up for collection. For hydrogen intensive factories or train fueling stations, for example, large scale generation facilities use concentrated solar power to drive chemical reactions or a variety of these systems have been built and tested over the years, but they come down to extremely hot simple reactions taking place at about 3600 degrees Fahrenheit or 2000 Celsius or more complex cooler reactions needing only 1000 degrees Fahrenheit or 500 degrees Celsius. These temperatures are reached by concentrating the sun's rays through two types of collectors. One is parabolic dish collectors that look like long troughs made of a curved mirror entering sunlight is bounced off any location on the mirror to a central collector pipe where the thermochemical reaction takes place. The dish rotates through the day to capture more heat. The second type is the so called eye of Sauron reactor, which relies on a field of mirrors each controlled by a computer to reflect light back to the top of a centrally located tower. The top of the tower is incandescent. Early versions resulted in the immediate immediate fiery death of birds who flew too close to the focal point before reflective deterrents were installed. Most of the tower versions are in open areas west of the Mississippi due to their size. And then there's a final smaller source of hydrogen collected from batteries. When chemical batteries are charged, hydrogen is sometimes produced in the electrolyte. It is used it used to be that this hydrogen was off gas from the batteries, but with the emergence of hydrogen power, it's now collected on purpose. And so let's talk about that collection. Now that we've kind of covered our generation, let's talk about storage. So early on different storage systems were tested. Physical systems compressed the gas into cylinders, froze and compressed it or converted it to a liquid. Another avenue was more chemical in nature, where friendly compounds converted or absorbed H2 for later release, kind of like a sponge. By weight or really better said mass, hydrogen is the densest fuel commonly available. The problem with hydrogen as a fuel is that it's very low energy per volume, especially at room temperature. Unlike gasoline or diesel, which was converted from a dense liquid or to a gas before combustion, hydrogen's boiling point is negative 487 degrees Fahrenheit to 53 Celsius. So storing it as a liquid isn't practical except in space. Chilling hydrogen reduces the volume of the gas in addition to compression. But over time, this idea was phased out because engineers found that the extra step and extra energy use of cooling it not to be worth the amount of space savings. It was just another element to break and need fixing. So just as generation is tailored to the task, storage strategies differ by application. And you can see some of them here if you're watching online. Every stationary system, such as a home, workshop or office, or even a factory has a pressure tank sized to the production capacity. This stores hydrogen at high pressure and must be specifically manufactured carbon reinforced vessels, which look like kind of like a water softener tank from the last century, where space is not really an issue. These are so called low pressure tanks holding hydrogen gas at 5000 psi, which is 350 bar or 34 megapascals. At this pressure, each two liters of hydrogen holds about three kilowatt hours of power. So even a small five gallon or 20 liter tank can hold enough power for a typical house at 2020 levels. That's 30 kilowatt hours. Workshops often use standardized 50 gallon or 200 liter tanks, holding as much as 300 kilowatt hours of energy. And then we have more mobile applications. And these have tanks rated to twice the pressure, holding a bit less than twice the energy per volume. The rule of thumb is that each kilogram or kilogram of hydrogen will drive a small vehicle 100 kilometers. That's about 3.5 pounds for 100 miles. Unfortunately, because it's so light, a large volume is needed to hold a small amount of hydrogen mass. Most vehicles have small tanks holding just six gallons or 25 liters. That's enough for 3.5 pounds or 1.6 kilograms of hydrogen for a range of about 100 miles or 160 kilometers. But that is plenty, since most everybody lives within a short distance of a transit hump. But we'll talk more about that when we get to transportation. Trains, trams and ships use larger storage tanks to move their loads across distances where direct electric connections are scarce like out west or on the ocean. On the other side of the spectrum, tiny fuel cells with just a small amount of storage can power tools, electronics or other equipment similar to how we use rechargeable batteries a century ago. Surprisingly, these tanks and hydrogen use in general are not actually that much more efficient or better than what was available in 2020. But their robustness, reliability and safety have been greatly improved over time. Also, the fact that we use less energy makes it easy to get by with these less efficient or not greatly advanced systems. So luckily, because energy is located at the point of use, large volumes of hydrogen are not transported around the world, as had once been the case with other fuels. As the transition away from fossil fuels is happening, the legacy companies, the fossil fuel companies, tried to convince lawmakers and the public that routing large volumes of hydrogen through erstwhile natural gas pipelines was a viable option. But this idea was quickly dismissed in favor of localized storage. So let's talk about how we use hydrogen today. Much like production and storage, the use of hydrogen is tailored to the size and nature of the end use. For the most part, hydrogen is used to sort excess electricity. So to release energy back to a flow of electrons, we use fuel cells of various sizes. In other cases, direct combustion of hydrogen is called for, but those are fairly rare. So a fuel cell is essentially a reverse electrolysis system. The hydrogens described above use energy to split hydrogen and oxygen apart using electricity. But here electricity is released when the two are combined back together, as shown here on the screen if you're watching us on YouTube. Hydrogen is fed into one side of a membrane electrode assembly. This is just a three layer electron filter. Hydrogen molecules or H2 hit the first layer, which is an anode, the one that oxidizes and gives up electrons. And that hydrogen is split into protons and electrons, but only the protons can pass through the next layer, a polymer electrolyte membrane, kind of a filter. In order to reach the cathode, which is the reducing side where electrons are gained, here they combine with oxygen and electrons to create water, H2O, and heat. Electrical current is produced because the electrons have to take a long way around the membrane where they can be routed through wires and therefore motors, lights, or other electric systems to do a little work along the way. Now if that's too complicated to visualize, just imagine a box. Hydrogen and oxygen go into one side, they're split apart and recombined as water out the other side, with an electrical charge as a byproduct. Fuel cells can be stacked and configured to create whatever voltage is needed for most uses. Many homes and workshops are outfitted with reversible fuel cells that can do both jobs, absorbing electricity to create hydrogen or vice versa. Well, a few specialty fabricators use methanol or alkaline fuel cells that use other inputs in similar systems. Oh, the humanity! That was a slogan used in the mid-2000s as fossil fuel companies tried to fight against the growth of hydrogen as a replacement fuel. Drawing on the Hindenburg disaster illustrated the danger of uncontrolled hydrogen combustion. Never mind that gasoline, kerosene, and natural gas were also responsible for their own fair share of fires and explosions, but in most cases it is more efficient to use hydrogen as a way to store electricity. For example, a fuel cell car gets two times more miles per unit of hydrogen than a hydrogen internal combustion engine. We call it a heist, spelled H-I-C-E, or hydrogen internal combustion engine. Hydrogen combustion is reserved for specialized uses. It works better than electrical systems in extreme cold like we have right now here in Wisconsin, so farther north when snow clearing is needed, Canadian municipalities use hydrogen fuel snow plows. Similarly, backup and cold start heating systems often rely on burning hydrogen to get things up to operating temperature before the fuel cells kick in. So generally, hydrogen is used as a battery alternative to power electrical systems, but because it has been so maligned in the past and requires its own distinct infrastructure, I thought it was worth going over individually. So another gas that we make use of is biogas, which is essentially methane produced today on purpose as opposed to fossil fuel methane, otherwise known as natural gas. We'll talk about how we produce, store, and use this fuel next time. Adios from Cooxville in 2100. That's it for this week. The low-tech podcast is put out by the Low Technology Institute. The show is hosted and produced by me, Scott Johnson. This episode was recorded in the low-tech recording booth in ice cold, freezing Cooxville, Wisconsin. Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play, YouTube, and elsewhere. We hope you enjoyed this free podcast. If you'd like to join the community and help support the work we do, please consider going to patreon.com slash lowtech institute and signing up, or if you have a minute, you could leave a review, share this with a friend. That would be great. Thank you to our Forester and Land Steward level members, Marilyn Skirpon and the Hamsis for their support as always. The Low Technology Institute is a 501c3 research organization supported by members, grants, and underwriting. You can find out more information about the Low Technology Institute membership and underwriting at lowtechinstitute.org. Find us on social media and reach me directly. I'm Scott at lowtechinstitute.org. Our intro music today was Retro Synths off the album Power Pop from Polizina. That song is in the public domain and this podcast is under the Creative Commons Attribution and Share Like License, meaning you're free to use it and share it as long as you have a credit. Thanks, take care and stay warm out there.


In today's lecture we will learn how to solve 2nd order linear homogeneous recurrence relations with constant coefficients. Now as we have seen before that a 2nd order linear homogeneous recurrence relation with constant coefficients will have the form a n plus c 1 a n minus 1 plus c 2 a n minus 2 equated to 0 where c 1 and c 2 are fixed real numbers. Let us name this equation as 1 now the solution technique consists of starting with a trial solution of the form a constant C times r raise to the power n and substituting this in 1 we get the constant times r raise to the power n plus c 1 into the constant times r raise to the power n minus 1 plus c 2 the constant times r raise to the power n minus 2 which is equal to 0 and in the first step we note that a reasonable assumption is C not equal to 0. So assume that C not equal to 0 to obtain r raise to the power n plus c 1 times r raise to the power n minus 1 plus c 2 times r raise to the power n minus 2 equal to 0 and we name this equation to we can further simplify this again with the assumption that r is not equal to 0 to get this r raise to the power n minus 2 equal to r square plus c 1 r plus c 2 into 1 equal to 0 assuming r not equal to 0 we have r square plus c 1 r plus c 2 equal to 0 let us call this equation number 3 the equation 3 is called the characteristic equation of the recurrence relation 1 usually when we are solving the recurrence relations of this type we can directly write the characteristic equation and proceed ahead but in this lecture each time we will start with the trial solution obtain the characteristic equation and then solve the characteristic equation to obtain the solutions of the recurrence relation this way over and over again we will get the practice of solving recurrence relations from the basic definitions now the first observation that we have over here is that the recurrence relation has been transformed to a to an algebraic equation thus in a way the solution of 1 is transformed to the problem of solving 3 which is an algebraic equation and for which we have established methods of solution now we start with an example as before we consider a n equal to cr to the power n and substituting in let us call this 4 we have cr to the power n minus 7 cr to the power n minus 1 plus 12 cr to the power n minus 2 equal to 0 that is r to the power n minus 7 r to the power n minus 1 plus 12 r to the power n minus 2 equal to 0 call it 5 that is r square minus 7 r plus 12 equal to 0 call it 6 and of course here we are assuming that r is not equal to 0 so our problem at hand is to solve the algebraic equation r square minus 7 r plus 12 equal to 0 r square minus 7 r plus 12 equal to 0 we factorize the left hand side first we can write r square minus 3 r minus 4 r plus 12 equal to 0 that is r minus 3 minus 4 r minus 3 equal to 0 that is r minus 3 into r minus 4 equal to 0 therefore the solution is r equal to 3 or r equal to 4 now when we get two distinct real solutions of the characteristic equation of a recurrence relation then we write the general solution in the form general solution of 4 is of the form an equal to some constant k1 times 3 to the power n plus another constant k2 times 4 to the power n now there is a theory dealing with linear recurrence relations which tells us that if we get the roots of the characteristic equation and if the roots are distinct then the general solution that is the general form of any solution will be of the form a constant times nth power of one root plus another constant times nth power of the other root we cannot go into details of the theory right now but we can accept that for the time being in order to solve the recurrence relation our for a particular case we have to do something more very often a recurrence relation comes with the so-called initial conditions in this case let us assume that we have an initial condition a0 equal to 2 and a1 equal to 5 that is somebody tells me that we have a discrete numeric function given by an where n varies from 0 to infinity and an minus 7 an minus 1 plus 12 an minus 2 equal to 0 for all n greater than or equal to 2 which is the problem that we are solving right now the initial conditions a0 equal to 2 and a1 equal to 5 has to be given along with the recurrence relation if we want a particular solution now we take the general solution of the recurrence relation under consideration and then put the value n equal to 0 for n equal to 0 we have a0 which is equal to 2 equal to k1 plus k2 therefore we know that k2 is equal to 2 minus k1 for n equal to 1 we have a1 which is equal to 5 equal to 3 times k1 plus 4 times k2 we can always put the value of k2 in terms of k1 obtain 3k1 plus 2 minus k1 which is equal to 3k1 plus 8 minus 4k1 which is equal to minus k1 plus 8 well this is essentially k1 equal to 8 minus 5 which means 3 therefore we have obtained the value of k1 which is equal to 3 and k2 equal to 2 minus k1 and this gives me minus 1 thus the solution of the recurrence relation is an equal to 3 times 3 to the power n minus 4 to the power n therefore it is 3 to the power n plus 1 minus 4 to the power n next we question that what happens in case we do not get two distinct real roots now let us look at a at a recurrence relation of the form an minus 2 times an minus 1 plus 2 times an minus 2 equal to 0 this is example now again we take an equal to c times r to the power n to obtain the characteristic equation first we get this one c r to the power n minus 2 times c r to the power n minus 1 plus 2 times c r to the power n minus 2 equated to 0 so we get c times r to the power n minus 2 equal to r square minus 2 times r plus 2 equal to 0 which leads us to the characteristic equation r square minus twice r plus 2 equal to 0 now we solve it so this means that r equal to 2 plus or minus 4 minus 8 divided by 2 which is equal to 2 2 plus minus minus of 4 into the square root sign and this is 2 plus or minus i times 2 divided by 2 which is 1 plus or minus i therefore the general solution is an equal to some c 1 times 1 plus i raise to the power n plus c 2 times 1 minus i raise to the power n but at this point we will process 1 plus i raise to the power n and 1 minus i raise to the power n but we see that 1 plus i is equal to root 2 into 1 by root 2 plus i times 1 by root 2 which is equal to root 2 cos pi by 4 plus i times sin pi by 4 within parenthesis therefore 1 plus i raise to the power n is root 2 raise to the power n and cos pi by 4 plus i sin pi by 4 raise to the power n and at this point we will use demyber's theorem to write 1 by root 2 root 2 raise to the power n cos n pi by 4 plus i sin n pi by 4 similarly 1 minus i is root 2 1 by root 2 minus i 1 by root 2 which is equal to root 2 cos minus pi by 4 plus i sin minus pi by 4 1 minus i raise to the power n will be root 2 raise to the power n cos minus pi n by 4 plus i sin minus pi n by 4 which is equal to root 2 to the power n cos n pi by 4 minus i sin n pi by 4 now we will be replacing this and this expressions in in place of 1 plus i raise to the power n and 1 minus i raise to the power n let us go to the next page now let us recall that we have an expression in the form an equal to c 1 1 plus i raise to the power n plus c 2 1 minus i raise to the power n where we have worked out the expressions for 1 plus i raise to the power n and 1 minus i raise to the power n which we substitute now to get c 1 2 to the power n times cos n pi by 4 plus i sin n pi by 4 plus c 2 cos n pi by 4 minus sin i sin n pi by 4 and we have to multiply by 2 to the power root 2 to the power n therefore we get root 2 to the power n c 1 plus c 2 cos n pi by 4 plus root 2 to the power n i times c 1 minus c 2 into sin n pi by 4 now suppose somebody tells us that there is there are initial conditions in the form a 0 equal to 1 and a 1 equal to 2 then we will substitute these values in the general solution to obtain 1 equal to a 0 equal to c 1 plus c 2 we have to note here that if we look at the expression of a n root 2 to the power n if n is 0 is 1 the next factor is c 1 plus c 2 which survives and then cos 0 pi by 4 is cos 0 which is 1 plus again root 2 raise to the power n is 1 i into c 1 minus c 2 will be there but sin 0 is 0 therefore the second term does not appear in this expression and therefore we get that c 1 plus c 2 is equal to 1 now if I put n equal to 1 then we will get 2 equal to a 1 which is equal to root 2 into 1 because we already know that c 1 plus c 2 equal to 1 into cos pi by 4 plus again we have a root 2 then i times c 1 minus c 2 and sin pi by 4 which we know is root 2 in fact let me write sin pi by 4 here sin pi by 4 so in the next step we write root 2 into 1 by root 2 plus root 2 into i c 1 minus c 2 by root 2 so root 2 will cancel both expressions so I get i times c 1 minus c 2 is equal to 1 and please see here that we really do not need c 1 c 2 independently separately we just need i times c 1 minus c 2 and c 1 plus c 2 and both are once therefore we have a n equal to root 2 raise to the power n cos n pi by 4 plus root 2 raise to the power n sin n pi by 4 thus we see that ultimately the solution that we get after putting the initial conditions is real the discrete numeric function a n for all values of n will take real values although in between we got some intermediate solutions which are complex numbers now the natural question that occurs here is that given a polynomial of degree 2 an equation whose degree is 2 that is a quadratic equation in single variable we know that there are 3 possible cases the it may have 2 distinct real solutions or 2 distinct complex solutions and there is a third case that is the case when the solutions are repeated or it is sometimes called the roots are repeated now we will now look at that case in example 3 consider the recurrence relation a n plus 2 minus 4 a n plus 1 plus 4 n equal to 0 now if we apply the same technique put a n equal to c times r to the power n then we get here c times r to the power n plus 1 n plus 2 so we get c times r to the power n plus 2 minus 4 into c times r to the power n plus 1 plus 4 into c times r to the power n which is equal to 0 now first we take out c to get an equation of the form r to the power n plus 2 minus 4 times r to the power n plus 1 plus 4 times r to the power n equal to 0 this is important therefore let us number the equations we again start from 1 so on this page the recurrence relation will be referred to as the equation 1 and r to the power n plus 2 minus 4 r to the power n plus 1 plus 4 r to the power n will be referred to as equation 2 and then assuming that r is not equal to 0 we get r square minus 4 r plus 4 equal to 0 let us call it 3 which is the characteristic equation of 1 it is obvious that 3 is same as r minus 2 square equal to 0 therefore we have only one root repeated twice which is r equal to 2 therefore we have one solution as a n equal to some constant times 2 to the power n but at this point it is very important the theory tells us that we have to get so called another linearly independent solution of the equation 1 now roughly speaking when we say we need another linearly independent solution we mean that the discrete numeric function that we are talking about is not a constant multiple of the discrete numeric function that we have obtained here that is c times r to the power n because all the constant multiples have been already taken into account in fact the theory says that the general solution of a second order linear homogeneous equation will be of the form of C1 times 1 solution plus C2 times another solution which is not a multiple of the first one now from the characteristic equation we get no other solution that is why we consider the equation 2 now since equation 3 has a repeated route we know that if we take the derivative of the left hand side of the equation 3 which is a quadratic polynomial that repeated route will also be satisfied that derivative will be also satisfied by that repeated route let us check that so let us write f r as r square minus 4 r plus 4 the derivative of f r that is f dash r is 2 times r minus 4 now f dash 2 is 2 into 2 minus 4 which is equal to 0 this is 2 in general now we have equation 2 over here which is essentially some gr equal to r to the power n into f r now if we take the derivative of gr that is g dash r this is by the chain rule the sorry the product rule we get n into r to the power n minus 1 f r plus r to the power n f dash r now if we put 2 instead of r then we have n into 2 to the power n minus 1 into f 2 plus 2 to the power n into f dash 2 now we know that f f 2 is 0 we have already proved that and we have already also seen that f dash 2 is equal to 0 therefore this is equal to 0 now we we take the derivative again of 2 in the form given as the left hand side of the equation 2 if we do that then we get n plus 2 r to the power n plus 2 minus 1 minus 4 times n plus 1 r to the power n plus 4 into n r to the power n minus 1 is equal to 0 and I know that this is satisfied for r equal to 2 now since we know that r not equal to 0 I multiply by r both sides to get n plus 2 r n plus 2 minus 4 n plus 1 r to power n plus 1 plus 4 n r to the power n which is equal to 0 now here we observe a startling fact we see that we have already proved that this equation is satisfied for r equal to 2 therefore we can safely write that this means n plus 2 to the power n plus 2 minus 4 n plus 1 to the power n plus 1 plus 4 n to the power n equal to 0 that means that if I had taken a n as n r to the power n as a discrete numeric function that discrete numeric function will satisfy the linear recurrence relation given by one let us match it because we have here n plus 2 to the power n plus 2 which is a n plus 2 if a n equal to n r to the power n so I have a n plus 2 then minus 4 a n plus 1 plus 4 a n equal to 0 so by considering the fact that if a quadratic equation has repeated roots then that repeated root is going to satisfy the equation obtained by taking the derivatives of the quadratic equation and then by using that and the equation 2 over here we have obtained a another solution for the original recurrence relation now let us look at these two solutions let us recall again the recurrence relation that we are considering a n plus 2 minus 4 a n plus 1 plus 4 a n equal to 0 and the recurrence this is the recurrence relation and the solutions are a n equal to a constant times 2 to the power n another solution is a n equal to a constant times n 2 to the power n now general solution will be of the form a n equal to some c 1 times 2 to the power n plus c 2 times n 2 to the power n now initial conditions are given by a 1 equal to 3 let us see and a 0 equal to let us take a 0 equal to 1 then if I put n equal to 0 then 1 equal to a 0 equal to c 1 and 2 to the power 0 is 1 and the second term is going to be 0 because n equal to 0 so we get c 1 equal to 1 and if I put n equal to 1 then we get 3 equal to a 1 equal to c 1 is 1 so 2 to the power 1 plus c 2 into 1 into 2 to the power 1 therefore we get 3 plus 3 equal to 3 equal to 2 plus 2 times c 2 which means c 2 equal to 1 thus the solution is a n equal to 2 to the power n plus half of n 2 to the power n thus in this lecture we have discussed recurrence relation which are second order linear homogeneous with constant coefficients and we have seen that a general method of solution exists and it leads to solving quadratic equations and when we want to solve quadratic equations in one variable there are three cases to be considered one when the roots are distinct real to roots are complex and three repeated roots we have seen how to handle these three cases in the context of second order linear homogeneous equations with constant coefficients this is all for today thank you


30-Second Theology. Surrender to the Holy Spirit isn't an emotion, it's an action. When we surrender to the Holy Spirit we receive countless benefits, but how do you surrender to the Holy Spirit? The answer is simple, but living it isn't always easy. To surrender is to obey, obey his voice, his word, and his commands. Obey when it costs you, obey when you don't understand, and obey the moment you know what his will is. To surrender to the Holy Spirit, obey the Holy Spirit.


And as to whether when we write is a willful, intentional, deliberate and mindful violation of any order. And even if you show that, and normally as to whether, like when the criminal law we say that jail is a rule and jail is an exception. And as to whether, like I can say of Punjab, Haryana High Court, abradely not because of this lockdown tenure of COVID-19. Normally they are 3,000 to 4,000 content predations. And there is also a power of where the courts, CO motor take cognizance. Again, some reference to that, but Shantush in case, again, we will not be discussing about that aspects. But where the courts take CO motor cognizance, a person criticizing a judge in his own way or the tenure of the language used on the social media like Facebook or something, what is the effect? We thought, why not request, I can say an elder brother of ours, who has been the one of the initial pillars who helped to build the Beyond Law CLC panel sessions on different issues of law. And once he has written a book on the contempt of Portaic itself. We thought that his articles have been published in the live law. We thought let's have a session being discussed across the board by Mr. Asin Pandya, who is a senior advocate from the Gujarat Bar Association. And he's also the former president of the Gujarat High Court Association. Coupled with, since I'm saying that he has written a book, need not to say that he's an author, he's an author. It needless to say it is just like saying that the water is, that the ice slopes on the water. Similarly, once we say that he's written a book, the spontaneous reaction is that he's an author. But the way, the way I've seen him taking the sessions forward, the way he tells you the judgments of the cuff and how he brings up the momentum to understand the nuances. It's always fascinating. And therefore, he was kind enough to see to our request. And we are all grateful to that. Before we request, as we also have started posting on the right, finally maintain social distancing, maintain the COVID norms, wear the mask, that is paramount. And needless to say those who want to watch us on the previous webinars, they can like, share, comment the YouTube channel of Beyond Law CLC. You're also live on Facebook. Over to you, Mr. Pandya. It's a pleasure connecting with you. Thank you, Vikas Singh. It is indeed a pleasure being here again. First of all, let me wish all of you who are present in this webinar, very good evening. And it is in fact very encouraging that Mr. Vikas Chakras praised me in a different way. And I am indeed grateful to him that I deserve those words or phrases I don't know that you will have to take decision after this session is over. So, in fact, Mr. Vikas Chakras has started this near-law last year. When the lockdown was imposed, I believe it's if I'm right. Now, since that last one year, he has been constantly arranging this kind of webinars, disseminating law, knowledge of law, which is in fact a Herculean task. It requires a great dedication, commitment and passion. So I could not resist myself in saying this that Mr. Chathar, whatever he's doing is a great job, which would be helpful not only to the present generation, but it is going to be useful to the next generation of lawyers and generations to come because whatever webinars he has conducted all throughout this year, more than one year, I think more than 300 webinars have been conducted. So all these are archived and therefore not only the present generation would be benefited, but future generation will also be benefited by these webinars. And whenever any question would arise in the mind of a student, mind of a lawyer or a mind of a judge on a particular legal issue, I'm sure that definitely in this web platform, which is created by beyond law CLC and Mr. Chathar, there would be an answer. So with this, let us move on to the subject. The subject is Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the contempt of courts like 1971. The title of today's webinar, in fact, does not convey what is the nature of discussion which is going to be done today. So let me just broadly point out the nature of discussion which is going to take place today is on one hand, we have constitutional provisions like Article 129 and Article 250. There are other articles also, which I will refer to a little later. And on the other hand, there is a provision, there is an act, parliamentary act, which is known as contempt of courts at 1971. So today's discussion would be about the interplay of the constitutional provisions and the provisions of the contempt of courts in 1971. You would wonder that why this kind of discussion is at all necessary. What is the need? That would be a first question which would occur to your mind. And the answer is that on this issue, that is whether parliament is entitled to make a law in relation to contempt of court. When such powers are inherent by the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of all High Courts all over the India under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. So once these powers are recognized under the Constitution, whether by ordinary legislation, such a power can be curtailed, limited and whether parliament under the enactment, prescribed maximum punishment, period of limitation and the procedure thereof. So this is the basic discussion which is going to take place today. Now, on the aspect of why it is necessary. If you examine this issue in the light of which, what I have said just now. If you examine these, the judgments of the Supreme Court of India on this issue, you would find a cleavage in opinions of the Supreme Court of India. There is one set of judgment which takes one kind, particular kind of view. And there is another set of judgments which take quite a contrary view of what has been taken by one set of judgments. Now, let me point out the first set of judgments that have taken a particular view is this. It has been stated that Article 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India confers or recognizes and inherits jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court in punishing contempt of its own court. Now, once this has been recognized or controlled by the provisions of the Constitution of India, such power inherent powers cannot be limited by an ordinary legislation made by a parliament. So that is first proposition of law which has been laid down in one set of judgments. The judgments I will refer to little later. The second proposition of law is, which has been laid down is that parliament has not made any law with regard to the contempt of the Supreme Court of India. It is very surprising and very, I think, ingenious way of saying that there is no law of contempt in relation to the contempt of court of the Supreme Court. So that is the second proposition of law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court. And third proposition of law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court is not governed by the provisions of the contempt of courts act 1971. And therefore, it is free to exercise the powers in their own way. It is not bound by the procedure laid down under the contempt of courts act. And it is also even not bound by the maximum punishment which is prescribed under the contempt of courts act. So this is a first set of judgment which takes this view. The other set of judgment which has taken view is quite contrary. And therefore, as a student, as a lawyer, as a judge, you would think which view is correct. So today's discussion is on this aspect there, which view is correct. So my efforts or my endeavour would be to guide you in the right direction out of these two views, which is a correct view. The second view which has been taken in the second set of judgments is this. That parliament does have legislative authority or power to make law in relation to the contempt of high court as well as the Supreme Court of India. So that is the first proposition of law. The only rider which has been put by the second set of judgment is that these powers which are wasted in Supreme Court and in the high court are inherent powers recognised by the constitution of India. And therefore, these power cannot be abrogated or stultified or cannot be taken away by ordinary legislation. So to what extent parliament can do is that it can define the contempt. It can lay down the procedure for investigation of the contempt. It can prescribe maximum punishment which can be imposed if a person is held guilty. It can prescribe limitation for initiating the action. But the parliament has no power, authority or jurisdiction to completely take away or divest the Supreme Court or the high court of its own jurisdiction, inherent jurisdiction which is recognised under Article 129 and 215 of the constitution of India. So this is the second set of judgment and now the basic task which we will have to undertake as to which one is a correct view. Now to understand this, that which view is a correct view, we will have to go little bit into the historical aspect of the contempt jurisdiction. The second aspect is that we may have to even look at the pre-constitutional legislation with regard to the contempt of courts act. And what are the changes made by this current law which is 1971 act which has been enacted on the basis of the report which was given by the Sanyal committee. Mr. Sanyal was an additional policy general who was given task to examine this aspect and submit his report. And on the basis of his report, this act has been enacted. And in the meantime after the Sanyal committee submitted its report, the report was reported to the joint select committee and they also made certain suggestions. And the present law that is 1971 act is the outcome of the joint efforts of the Sanyal committee report and joint select committee of Bhargava committee which is known as Bhargava committee also. So this is the outcome of this. Now let us go to the first aspect, historical aspect. So far as contempt jurisdiction is concerned, it has been said that contempt jurisdiction is co-evaluable with the first foundation of the court. So it dates back to the first foundation of the court itself. When the first foundation of the court is laid, it is a necessary incident and attribute of the court because without such powers, the court will not be able to exist and will not be able to enforce the final judgements and orders that are passed by the court. So it is a necessary incident and attribute of the superior court of record and it dates back to its first foundation itself. So this is the historical background in which the contempt jurisdiction has been understood. Now under the in England, this principle that every court of record, superior court of record has inherent jurisdiction to commit contempt of court of itself and this subordinate courts there too is a principle which is referable to the common law. So this principle that superior courts has jurisdiction to decide what constitute contempt, what procedure to be followed, what punishment should be imposed is referable to the common law. And all the superior courts that are constituted have this power as a necessary attribute and incident of it being a court of record. So when in India the courts were established, initially Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta was established in 1774 and later on three courts in 1800 and 1824 at Bombay and Madras Supreme Court of Judicature were established. They were conferred the powers of King Bench and King's Bench being superior court of record, these three courts also derived this power of contempt by virtue of it being equated with the King's Bench powers. So these three chartered high courts derived this power of contempt by virtue of this charter of 1774 and more particularly since under the charter it was considered as a court of record. Thereafter in 1861 Indian High Courts Act converted the Supreme Court into the high courts and all original powers have been continued. Later high courts were established by different charters but all these courts were constituted as court of record. And court of record as I said that in England it is a common law principle that all courts of record have inherent jurisdiction to commit contempt of itself and also subordinate courts there too. So this principle of common law has been transplanted into India prior to the codification of law. The first legislation which was there in India is 1926 contempt of courts act. The object of the contempt of courts 1926 act was that prior to that it was considered to be unfettered power, unbridled power and unlimited power. So what kind of punishment is to be imposed upon a contempt was absolutely in the discretion of a judge. And that is how it was prior to the codification of law it was considered to be arbitrary power. Absolutely arbitrary power which would be depending on the judge's temperament. So some judge might impose a punishment of one year some judge might impose a punishment of six months. So it was absolutely left to them. So in those days the contempt jurisdiction was considered to be arbitrary unlimited jurisdiction which did not define what is contempt. It did not define even what would be the punishment which is liable to be imposed. And interestingly the accuser the jury the judge and hangman were the same person that is the judge concern. So that is how it was considered to be most arbitrary jurisdiction. So the parliament thought it fit to limit this jurisdiction arbitrary jurisdiction by providing the maximum punishment that can be imposed if a person is on guilty of contempt. So in 1926 act for the first time the powers are defined. So maximum punishment has been prescribed that if a person is held guilty of contempt of court. He can be punished for imprisonment up to six months and he can be a fine for 2000 rupees. So that was the punishment which was prescribed in 1926 act. Later on certain amendments were made in 1926 act in 1937. And it was held it was provided for that high court would not only include the high court created by chartered specific charters but also judicial commissioners also. So high court would also include judicial commissioners. And also there were some doubts that even person has committed contempt outside the territorial jurisdiction of the high court whether he could be proceeded with and he can be punished by a particular high court if he is outside the jurisdiction of the court. So those doubts were raised and ultimately in 1952 the act was re-enacted with this clarification that irrespective of the person whether he is in the territory of the particular high court or not but he has committed contempt of a particular high court. He can be proceeded against in that court and he can be imposed appropriate fine within the limits that are prescribed under the provisions of the 1926 act and 1952 act. So 1952 act was mere reproduction of 1926 act with these two clarification that it would also high court would also include judicial commissioners in those days. And whether person is within the territorial jurisdiction of the particular high court if he has committed contempt he can be proceeded with before that particular court and he can be punished. So these two clarifications of those enactments are very short enactments. They have hardly five sections only they are not elaborate enactments. So but interestingly when 1952 act was enacted the constitution has already come into force which has recognized that Supreme Court has also power of content but somehow in 1952 this aspect has been missed out. So the first judgment which was post constitution judgment that is 1954 judgment that is Sukadev Singh's case. In that case Supreme Court considered all these aspects constitutional history and the history of the contempt of courts and the codification of the contempt law. And all those things have been considered and then it said that these acts provide jurisdiction and provides limit in respect of the high courts only. It was true when that judgment was given by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in 1954 but that view which was laid down by the Supreme Court in 1954 was no longer a good law after 1971 enactment which is a present enactment. So this is the basic background in which the task was given to Mr. Sanyal to make recommendation what kind of legislation should be enacted. And ultimately on the basis of the report given by Mr. Sanyal and which was a report to a joint select committee the present act has been enacted. Interestingly Mr. Sanyal undertook this exercise of examining whether the inherent powers which have been recognized under the constitution of India could be limited, could be defined and could be regulated by a parliamentary legislation. After thorough examination of the constitutional provisions, the pre-constitutional laws of Privy Councils, the 1883 law in Surindranath Menarche's case of the Calcutta High Court, all those cases were considered constitutional provisions were examined and after thorough examination and after due deliberation the Sanyal Committee came to the conclusion that Parliament does have jurisdiction to enact a law in relation to the concept of court of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court. Only limitation which is there is that this power the Supreme Court or the High Court cannot be denuded of the inherent jurisdiction. The power cannot be abrogated altogether. It cannot be taken away but Parliament does have power to limit it, to regulate it and provide a maximum punishment for the content. So with this background this act was enacted. Now we are going into the debate why Supreme Court has taken a totally different view despite the recommendation of the Sanyal Committee or report of the Sanyal Committee. Why this strange view has been taken? It is because of not examining the history of the contempt of courts and the law relating to contempt of court. The Supreme Court has also not examined whatever the changes made in the 1926 act and 1952 act after codification. One important aspect which has been missed out by the Supreme Court throughout that I will advert a little later but we are considering why this kind of strange view has been taken. So first of all I will discuss those judgments where the Supreme Court has said that power of the Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India is an inherent jurisdiction and no law of Parliament can regulate it or limit it. And it is absolutely in the discretion of the Supreme Court of India to decide in what manner the contempt proceeding should be conducted and what punishment should be imposed. Now before I take all of you to this set of judgments which has taken this view that contempt of court is not applicable to Supreme Court of India and Parliament has not made a law in relation to the Supreme Court of India or contempt of court. Now this is a very strange observation in my personal view and when I discuss the constitutional provisions and the certain omissions which have taken place you would realize that this statement of law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court their Parliament has not made law with regard to the Supreme Court of India's contempt of court. So this is a very strange view but before I go to these judgments that have taken this view let us take a quick look at the provisions of the Constitution of India. Now first provision is Article 129. Now what does Article 129 states? It states that the Supreme Court of India shall be a court of record and it shall have power of such a court including power to punish for the contempt of itself. So it has been constituted as a court of record having all powers of such a court and then including power to punish for contempt of itself. So these are the wordings of Article 120 now. Now what are the wordings of Article 250? It is also similarly worded. The only difference is that instead of the Supreme Court of India it has been stated that every high court shall be a court of record and every high court shall have all powers of such a court including power to punish for contempt of itself. So both are parametric and wordings are almost identical except the name of the court is changed in Article 129. It is Supreme Court, Article 250, it is high court. Another provision which is very relevant is Article 142 sub-Article 2. Article 142 sub-Article 2 also provides the power of the Supreme Court of India to investigate contempt of itself and impose appropriate punishment. But that power has been specifically made subject to the law made by the parliament. So please note this that Article 142 clearly lays down that Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of itself but that would be subject to any law made by the parliament. So powers are specifically made subject to the law of parliament. So inherent jurisdiction yes it is right but it is not correct to say that it cannot be limited or defined, contempt cannot be defined or limitation cannot be restrict. So it is made subject to law of the parliament. The another indication that parliament is entitled to make law in relation to contempt of court and it has made a law. Because 1971 act is a composite law which is applicable to high court as well as the Supreme Court. There is no justification from where did they get that Supreme Court is the contempt of courts act is not applicable to Supreme Court or if the parliament has not made a law in relation to Supreme Court. It is very strange view but we will discuss this aspect. So I was on the point that there is another indication that parliament has power to define or limit or regulate the procedure of the Supreme Court in relation to contempt of itself or subordinate court. That is that you will find in article 90 of article 2. Article 191 gives or recognizes freedom of speech and expression but that freedom or fundamental right is subject to the law that may be made by parliament with regard to certain exceptions and the exception contains that contempt of God. So here also article 19 of article 2 also refers to a parliament legislation. So parliament can make law containing freedom of speech and expression and that would also include law in relation to the contempt of court also. Because when certain restrictions are imposed by the provisions of the contempt of court set, they would be in the nature of restriction on freedom of speech and expression. So that is also being subject to the law made by a parliament. Now I will take you to the entries, relevant entries. Entry 77 of list 1 of schedule 7 clearly conquers powers on the parliament to make law in relation to the contempt of Supreme Court also. So entry 77 says that parliament is entitled to make law in relation to Supreme Court its organization and its jurisdiction including the contempt of courts. And also a clear indication is that 77 entry 77 of list 1 schedule 7 clearly recognizes power in parliament to define and regulate the contempt procedure of the Supreme Court. Entry 14 of concurrent list that is list 3 is also clearly says, it clearly says contempt of court but not Supreme Court of India. So if we read article 129, article 142 sub-article 2, article 19 sub-article 2 and entries 77 of list 1 and entry 14 of concurrent list 3, it clearly empowers parliament to make law in respect of the Supreme Court of India as well as the High Court. So the statement of the Supreme Court that parliament cannot make legislation in relation to the contempt of Supreme Court because it is an inherent jurisdiction recognized by article 129 on the face of it. In the light of this provisions, the statement of law is clearly not sustainable. Now, let us understand what does the court of record means. Court of record because everywhere the emphasis is on the court of record and inherent jurisdiction. So it is necessary to understand what what does the phrase court of record means. Court of record simply means that the acts and judicial proceedings of the court are preserved for permanent testimony and they are preserved and that's why it is known as court of record and the record is presumed to be correct. So that is the basic meaning of the court of record. All the judicial proceedings and the acts of the courts are preserved for perpetual testimony and they are presumed to be correct. Another incident of the court of superior court of record is that it has inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt of itself. So that is another incident of the court of record and the third and most important incident of any court when it is constituted as a court of record is that that nothing is beyond the jurisdiction of a court of record unless the constitution or a specific legislation expressly says so. So everything is within the limit within the jurisdiction of the superior court of record. So court of record has is presumed to have unlimited jurisdiction unless the parliament expressly say otherwise. Whereas inferior court of record have nothing which is not stated or I must say that it has only such jurisdiction which is specifically confirmed by a statute. Remaining or residual jurisdiction is completely ruled out. So this is the incident of the court of record. Now coming to the topic, the set of judgments which have taken view. Even recent judgment in Prashant Gushal case, in real Vijay Kurali's case, all these decisions are falling in the first set of judgments where the Supreme Court has held that parliament does not have jurisdiction or authority to make legislation in relation to the contempt of the Supreme Court of India. And there is a parliament has not made any law in respect of contempt of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the contempt of courts like 1971 are not applicable to the Supreme Court of India. So those judgment now we will start discussing. The first judgment in this line is Pritam Pal versus High Court of MP, which is reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court, page number 904. In this case, the technical point was raised before the High Court that High Court has failed to observe the procedural set parts which are envisaged under the provisions of the contempt of courts. And while dealing with such an objection, the High Court and the Supreme Court say that the powers of High Court and the Supreme Court are recognized under Article 129 and Article 200 respectively. And they are not fresh, conferral of the powers. They are simply recognition of the original powers which are already there. So it is not a fresh, conferral power and therefore parliament cannot make any legislation and whatever legislations are made of serving will serve as a guide only. And High Court of the Supreme Court of India is not bound by the provisions of the contempt of courts because their powers are constitutional. So that is the first judgment. Then another judgment is Aai Vaniyal versus Dr. H. Borobahu Singh. That is AIR 1994 Supreme Court, page 505. There it was not a question pertaining to contempt of High Court of the Supreme Court as speaker of a legislative assembly. Though he was directed to act in a particular manner, he was not carrying out the directions of the High Court and he was claiming immunity which is conferred under the constitution to the speaker of the legislative assembly. And in that background, the Supreme Court and the High Court examine their constitutional jurisdiction to vis-à-vis the contempt of courts. And they have again said that the Supreme Court and the High Courts are entitled to evolve its own procedure in relation to the contempt of itself. That is another judgment. Then third judgment in the line is T. Sudhakar Prasad versus government of an MP which is reported in 2001 SCC page 516. Now this judgment also speaks on the same line, but there also there was no such issue which was raised. It was a matter pertaining to the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The question raised before the Supreme Court was or the High Court was that after L. Chandrakumar's judgment, whether administrative tribunals power under section 17 to punish for contempt of itself would continue or it would become redundant. That was the issue which was raised in T. Sudhakar Prasad's case and there was no occasion to deal with all these issues which we are discussing today. Then next in line is Rajesh Shover Singh versus Tumratara Sahara's case that is reported in AIR 2014 SCC page 476. So here also again the Supreme Court stick to its original view which was laid down in Petham Pal Singh's case that Supreme Court is not bound by the provisions of the contempt of courts and parliament has not made any law. So in that case the court was really concerned with the technical objection which was raised by Mr. Ram Jayan Malani saying that if a complaint is made by a person without obtaining consent of the advocate general, such a complaint cannot be investigated because of the provisions of the contempt of courts. While dealing with such an objection, the Supreme Court said that it was a court monitor investigation and person was carrying out the direction of the Supreme Court and if in such directions which he was implementing, if certain interference is caused by somebody then he is liable to be punished for contempt. And in that background the Supreme Court examined the technical objection and repelled the contention by referring to its inherent jurisdictional 129 of the constitution of India. Last two judgments are most important because they have confused the law which has been settled by the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheet versus Kastroden because this was the view earlier of a prevalent prior to the Pallav Sheet's judgment. Of course Rajeshwar Singh's judgment is poor and curable because it has not taken note of the Pallav Sheet's decision which is a binding judgment where the Supreme Court has extensively examined the constitutional scheme and powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court under Article 129 and 250. Now interestingly, the Vijay Kurales case which is reported in AIR 2020, Supreme Court, page 3927. In this case also certain technical objections were raised about the manner in which the content proceedings were conducted by the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court failed to follow certain procedural safeguards provided under the content of court set and it was investigated in a manner which the Supreme Court deemed inappropriate. So the contention was raised that the Supreme Court ought to follow the provisions of the content of court set. It is required to frame charge. It is required to give particular notice in a particular format giving details of the content and also without consent of the advocate general such a proceeding was not maintained at all. Now while dealing with such contentions, the Supreme Court relied upon judgment of its own judgment in Pritil Mal Singh's case and Delhi Judicial Service Associations case must state of Gujarat. I will refer to that judgment little later but the Delhi Judicial Service Association case does not lay down what is referred to by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kurales case or in Prashant Bhushan case. It was entirely different case in the different set of circumstances the case had arisen before the Supreme Court and in that background the Supreme Court made certain observations. Those observations were taken out of context by the Supreme Court of India Vijay Kurales case and in the Prashant Bhushan case and the weighty argument of the lawyers have been repelled they were not accepted. So in these two cases also the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion so I will again state what are the conclusions in this set of judgments. These conclusions in this set of judgments are first conclusion is that Article 129 confers inherent jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of India and it cannot be regulated by ordinary legislation. Second proposition of law parliament has not made law with regard to the content of Supreme Court and the provisions of content of courts act will serve as merely guide so far as Supreme Court is concerned and Supreme Court is not bound by the provisions of the content of courts act. Now interestingly I guess one judgment which is also very interesting that is Zahira Habib Ghulla Sheikh v. state of Gujarat which is reported in 2006 Supreme Court page 1367 where Supreme Court improves the punishment of one year for the content of court on Zahira. The details of the case are that she filed different epidemics before different courts taking different stance and essentially she was guilty of committing perjury and which was also an offense constituting content of court. In this background the Supreme Court said that this is a very serious thing and the power of the Supreme Court under 129 is not limited by the provisions of the content of courts act. So the Supreme Court traveled beyond the maximum punishment of six months which is correct under the provisions of the content of court act and it imposed one year's punishment on Zahira Sheikh for committing content of court and also imposed a cost of 50,000. So far as cost is concerned I am not concerned because the content of court act does not specify what should be the amount of cost but it does provide for the maximum fine that is the maximum fine which is impossible under the provisions of the content of court act is 2000 rupees. So maximum punishment is six months and maximum fine is 2000 rupees. Now going beyond all these Supreme Courts in these sets of judgments have totally given a go-by to the statutory skip, the historical aspects as well as the report of the Sanyal committee which was the basis of the present act 1971 act. And it has also not noticed certain provisions of the content of court act. It has simply referred to section 15 in arriving at the conclusion that section 15 is merely procedural law and it does not affect the inherent jurisdiction and there is no other provision under the content of court act which refers to the powers of the Supreme Court of India. While holding these Supreme Court has not referred to the provisions of section 12, section 13, section 14 which provides for content in the face of the court. There also it has been specifically referred to that in the spectrum content in the face of court before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has to follow the procedure under section 14. If it is not a content, it's a criminal content in the face of the court then section 15 will apply. So section 14 specifically refers to Supreme Court by specific name, section 15 also specifically refers to by name. Section 12 and 13 refers to that no court shall impose any punishment beyond the prescribed punishment that is 6 months in prison when then fine of 2000 rupees. So no court word has been used. Now there is an interesting omission. In 1926 act and 1952 act, the act referred to that high court shall not impose punishment beyond 6 months imprisonment and beyond the proposed 2000. Now when this act was enacted in 1971, there is a clear omission. So instead of high court, the word chosen has been the no court shall impose. So no court would also include the Supreme Court. So Supreme Court has not taken note of section 12. Then section 13 also says that no court shall impose imprisonment unless the court finds that being content is substantial. So interference with the judicial proceedings or interference with the administration of justice or scandalizing of court is of substantial nature. Then only imprisonment will have to be imposed. So there also the word no court has been used instead of high court. So that would certainly mean that the legislature wanted to cover every court. Now Supreme Court comes up with a strange argument. Some people also argue that concept of court has defined the word high court, but it has not defined the Supreme Court. The reason is that there is only one Supreme Court. Whereas while defining the high court, it intended originally that it wanted to cover the judicial commissioners also because in many states at the relevant time there was no properly constituted high courts and there were judicial commissioners which were exercising the power and a robust to the high court. So for that limited court, the definition of high court was necessitated and omission to provide a definition of Supreme Court in definition clause is absolutely insignificant and is of no consequence. So similarly, then section 18 also refers to the provisions for examination of criminal content by an age of two judges. Then section 20, specifically said that no court shall take cognizance of content after one year's period. And section 23 of the content of courts provides that Supreme Court and the high court shall be entitled to frame rules in relation to the content of itself or the subordinate court. And all high courts have in exercise of power under section 23 and the Supreme Court has also in exercise of the power, constitutional power as well as the powers under section 23 of the content has enacted certain rules and this kind of specific procedure. So this is absolutely improper to state that there is no separate law enacted by parliament or the Supreme Court of India. The content of court site is read as a whole in conjunction with the historical background and the specific commissions. It would definitely apply to the Supreme Court of India also because it is a composite law and the parliament is not expected to come out with a separate law in relation to the content of Supreme Court. Because this act has been enacted in exercise of entry 77, list 1, read with entry 14 of concurrent list. So there is a specific sanction under the constitution itself and therefore the Supreme Court's observation in this set of judgments is absolutely incorrect. Now coming to the second set of judgments, we will quickly go through and then I will record what are the final conclusions and which is a correct view. Now second set of judgments which has clearly recognized the authority of parliament to make legislation. Please note down those judgments because they would be useful in coming to the correct conclusion. The first judgment is Mohammad Ikram versus state of UP that is AIR 1964 Supreme Court page 1625. This judgment is prior to 1971 act so it essentially refers to 1952 act and therefore it may not be very relevant but it has clearly stated that parliament is entitled to define content and limit the maximum punishment which is liability imposed. Then SK Sarkar versus Vinay Chandra which is reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court page 723. There also the question was raised that an application filed without the consent of the advocate general whether it would be maintainable. And the Supreme Court said that in a given case, if a prayer is made to treat its information and request is made to exercise sumo motor powers such an application is maintainable and the court would be free to take sumo motor cognizance and while examining the constitutional scheme. The Supreme Court clearly recorded that the only limitation on the parliament's power is that it cannot completely abrogate the powers inherent powers of the Supreme Court and invest such powers in another court. It can additionally confer certain powers but it cannot digest or denude Supreme Court or the high court of its inherent jurisdiction that is the only limitation which has been recorded in this judgment. The Delhi judicial service association which has been strongly relied upon in the other set of judgments. In my respectful view that judgment does not specifically state what has been referred to in the other set of judgments. The Delhi judicial service association versus state of Gujarat was a case where one judicial magistrate was manhandled by police. He was arrested handcuff and he was taken in the town in a handcuff position and that created great problem in the judicial circle and it was constituted as contempt. It was such a great contempt that police officers arrested the judicial magistrate first class and took him to the town in a handcuff position with tied with a rope. So Supreme Court, the DC very court judicial service association and many other persons directly moved Supreme Court of India to take cognizance of the contempt. And in that proceedings a contention was raised that section 15 subsection 2 of the contempt of courts provides for taking cognizance of subordinates contempt only by the high court. And Supreme Court has no direct jurisdiction to take cognizance of the contempt of the subordinate court. Now in this background the Supreme Court scanned the entire law and the provisions of the contempt of courts act. It referred to Article 129, 215 and 377 all those things and ultimately said that parliament will have jurisdiction to enact a law in relation to contempt but it cannot fully denude the Supreme Court of its inherent power. And only limitation is this that it cannot be invested in another court and while holding this Supreme Court said that there is no restriction under the contempt of courts act that Supreme Court cannot take direct cognizance of the contempt of the subordinate court. And in judicial hierarchy the Supreme Court being the highest court, it is the judicial duty of the Supreme Court of India to protect the subordinate judiciary. And it is not correct to say that in respect of subordinate courts only high court has jurisdiction to take slow motor cognizance. So while dealing with this particular observations were made but those observations are taken out of context in the first set of judgments which I had already referred to. And they are being interpreted to mean that the Supreme Court has, I'm sorry parliament has no jurisdiction or authority to make a law in relation to this. So this daily judicial service association judgment is discussed out of context certain observations are taken out of context. The next judgment is Supreme Court Bar Association judgment versus Union of India which is reported in year 1998 Supreme Court page 1895. Here also the Supreme Court clearly recognized so far as high court is concerned. Supreme Court clearly recognized that so far as high courts are concerned article 250 though it confers inherent jurisdiction on all high court to commit any person for contempt of itself. The contempt of courts act would be applicable the parliament is fully justified in defining what is contempt in regulating the procedure prescribing the maximum punishment. So it has stated like this that so far as high courts are concerned there is no doubt. So now please note down that so far as high courts are concerned article 215 provisions are concerned it can be regulated by parliament maximum punishment can be prescribed and limitation can also be prescribed. And that has been clearly held by this constitutional judgment of five judges. But now interestingly while coming to the power of the Supreme Court which uses the same same phrasiology like article 215 the Supreme Court states again same thing in Supreme Court Bar Association case that parliament has not enacted any law with regard to the contempt of the Supreme Court. And again stated that this issue of course has been considered in past but considering the importance of this issue we are leaving it to be decided in appropriate case. So these constitution based judgment did not decide this issue finally. It was kept open to be decided by the Supreme Court in an appropriate case whether article 129 can be factored by parliamentary legislation and whether the Supreme Court is bound by the procedure prescribed by ordinary legislation. So this issue was clearly kept open but while doing that also certain tentative observations were made and they are also being relied upon in the first set of judgments to come to a particular conclusion. Now most important judgment which lays down the correct law. Please take note of this judgment which is a three judges bench judgment. So in addition to the five judges bench judgment Supreme Court Bar Association where clearly 215 jurisdiction has been clarified. And this judgment which I'm referring to is Pollock sheet versus custodian which is reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court page 2763. It is a three judges bench judgment where Supreme Court in paragraph 30 to 33 comprehensively examine the constitutional provisions. The Sunnel committee report previous legislation and then finally come to the conclusion that if the contempt of court has defined contempt what is contempt if it is prescribed procedure. And if it has prescribed maximum punishment and limitation it cannot be said that by ordinary legislation the power of the Supreme Court has been completely abrogated or taken away. It is merely defining and limiting the powers which is permissible if we see the legislative scheme and constitutional scheme. So this judgment in my view lays down the correct view. This is the correct view which is taken after full deliberation, whole discussion and this was the direct issue which was raised in this matter. And of course it was originally it was in connection with the power of the High Court to initiate a contempt within what period of limitation. So and what is what is the implication of taking cognizant which is used in section 20 of the contempt of court side. Allowships was essentially relating to limitation which has been prescribed for taking cognizant of the contempt. But while dealing with this issue the court has specifically considered all these aspects and what is the maximum punishment which can be imposed by the Supreme Court or the High Court in exercise of even their inherent jurisdiction under article 129 and 1115. So this judgment lays down the correct law and this has been followed again in 2016. In 2016 Mahesh was paring versus Allahabad High Court which is reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3267 where again the Supreme Court said that it is settled law. That the powers of contempt, though inherent in Supreme Court and High Court, they are liable to be defined, regulated and the parliament who is entitled to impose, provide maximum punishment that can be imposed under the law by even Supreme Court. So now these are the two views and then as a lawyer, as a student or as a judge, you are confronted with these two views. You should be clear that what has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the law sheet is correct. And Supreme Court, the Mubarak Association decision is also a complete answer in relation to the power of the High Court under article 250. And what was ambiguous has also been clarified so far as article 129. It is a distortion or a deviation of the settled law in these two latest decision that is we Vijay Kurali and we Prashant Kushan case. In fact in Prashant Kushan case, when punishment was to be imposed, again this argument was raised and it has been argued by the advocate that there is no conflict between the constitutional provisions and the provisions of the contempt of courts. They work in harmony. There is no conflict at all. And God is unnecessarily paying attention to some sort of imaginary conflicts and then trying to preserve their jurisdiction as if it is an unlimited jurisdiction. But this argument was negative by the Supreme Court by simply reproducing 18 pages, 18 pages from Vijay Kurali's judgment. There has to be some limits in reproduction. How can you produce 18 pages from one judgment? Just to answer a particular question and then say that this argument has been dealt with and we are therefore we are not discussing it. And we can Vijay Kurali's judgment where Pallav Shade's judgment was cited as a precedent by Indian President. Vijay Kurali's judgment is a two-judge's judgment. Whereas Pallav Shade's judgment is a three-judge's-ben judgment where the issue has been directly dealt with, elaborated and discussed. When it was cited, the Supreme Court simply said that it was dealing with limitation and this issue was not directly dealt with and therefore it is not binding and we do not propose to discuss that decision at all. So that is how the judgment in Vijay Kurali cannot be considered to be a precedent, a binding precedent for one reason that the decision of Pallav Shade has been performed currently dealt with which is binding to it. And all this legislative history and Supreme Court bar association judgment and other judgments Maheshwar Peri's judgment 2016 which is given by Justice Joseph sitting with Justice Nariman. That it is a settled law that parliament is entitled to regulate and define the contempt and the precedent maximum punishment. Despite this is the position and therefore in Prashant Vishal's case it was a three-judge's-ben judgment but ultimately they have before two-judge's-ben judgment. So entire law has been confused because of these two latest judgments where in fact the controversy was fully settled and in my view there is no doubt about the jurisdiction of parliament or authority of parliament to make legislation. With only one caveat that parliament cannot completely take away or divest Supreme Court or high court of its inherent jurisdiction under 129 and 250 respect. This is the only limit otherwise everything can be done under ordinary law which is enacted by parliament and it is a composite law. So this one interesting aspect I think very little time is left just two minutes more and then we will end it because 1 hour and 10 minutes have passed. Now the erogation of unlimited jurisdiction is antithesis to the rule of law. When Supreme Court says that we are not long by any law and we have unfettered jurisdiction. That itself violates the fundamental and basic structure in where it has been stated that rule of law is part of basic structure. And it also ignores the long-established dictum that king is under no man but the God and the law which was laid down by Henry the Brepton in 13th century and which is also part of Magna Carta. So this the erogation of unlimited jurisdiction having unlimited jurisdiction or unfettered powers in the matter of content of itself for a subordinate court as assumed by the Supreme Court has no place in the constitution which is governed by law because Supreme Court is also ultimately the creature of constitution and when the Supreme Court is the creature of the constitution it has no authority to ignore the constitutional mandate and rely upon the old powers, the powers which were prevalent which was considered to be arbitrary unregulated powers prior to the codification of law. So the Supreme Court cannot go back to the original position prior to pre-codified law and rely upon those observations which have been given by the courts in England or which have been given by pre-council or other high courts prior to the constitution of India. So my conclusions are three, Parliament has legislative competence to define and limit the contempt and Parliament cannot diverse inherent powers of the Supreme Court of contempt and investigate other court and there is no need to have a separate law for the contempt of the Supreme Court. So with this, I end this session. I am thankful to Mr. Vikas Chaturth for giving me this opportunity to share my views and I believe this clarity which I have tried to impart would definitely be helpful to you in practice when you are confronted with this kind of question by the Supreme Court of the High Court. So now let us open the question and answer session if anyone has any questions. We have got the questions. Yes. Mr. Vikas, can content proceedings be initiated against the trial court judges for not following the mandatory precedence and why the courts are reluctant to take action against the judges? Actually section 16 is a clear answer to the question. Section 16 said that the judges are also liable for the contempt of themselves also of the other court. So section 16 of the contempt of courts is a clear answer. There also, again, there is one writer which has been judge made law in the state of Rajasthan versus Prakashan. Here I am 1998 piece 1315 where Supreme Court said that the judges of the court of record cannot commit contempt of itself or any other court. So it's a broad proposition which has been laid down in the state of Rajasthan versus Prakashan. But otherwise subordinated judges are liable to be held for contempt of court if they ignore the binding precedent. This is by Dr. Shri Kanth. Can argument be advanced that the Supreme Court's power is covered under the basic structure doctrine? Basic structure doctrine on the contrary, I am saying that whatever the Supreme Court is trying to erronell to itself is antithesis to the rule of law and basic structure. The rule of law clearly says that everybody has to follow the law and constitution because as I said that the Supreme Court itself is a creature of constitution. How can it ignore the constitutional provisions and say that whatever was prior to codification of law, we will follow that on the basis of theory of inherent jurisdiction. That would be improper, that would be violating that basic principle of any legal system that the king is under no man except the God and the law. So Supreme Court is also bound by the law. This is Raghav Tana Ji. No, this is by Abed Khan, a person who disobeys the decree, judgment or order of the courts to commit civil contempt. Then what about criminal contempt procedure? Criminal contempt has been defined under section 2c. It is in three parts. First part deals with scandalizing of the court. Second part deals with the interference with the pending judicial proceedings. And third part deals with the interference with the administration of justice. So when these three things are there, any of these things, then it would constitute a criminal contempt. Then civil contempt means willful disobedience of the order, decree or an undertaking to the court. So civil contempt has been defined under section 2b. Whereas criminal contempt has been defined under section 2c, which is in three parts, but which largely covers entire spectrum of all sorts of cases of criminal nature. Either it is scandalizing the court or interfering with the judicial proceedings or interference with the administration of justice. If a matter is settled under the arbitration act and there is a violation, can proceedings of contempt of court act be initiated? I think if I recollect recently there is a judgment of the Supreme Court where it has been held probably that he would be liable for contempt. If I recollect rightly, there is a recent Supreme Court judgment that since an arbitrator is also entitled to issue injunctions under section 9 and later on under section 16 of the arbitration act. And it has almost characteristics of an enforceable decree and therefore violation thereof would constitute a contempt. That is my impression is I am subject to correction, but mostly I am right. Panaj Utyan has a Supreme Court never overtly overruled the Preetam Pall's judgment. Preetam Pall's judgment, if I may say it was 1990, I will have to check the name. Because thereafter this Supreme Court bar association judgment and the Delhi Judicial Service Association and Pallabshed's judgment. Pallabshed's judgment if you refer to it, if I recollect rightly it has been dealt with in that judgment and despite that judgment the Supreme Court free judge's bench has clearly held and therefore I am not sure but it is infinitely overruled. So I would say that it is not a correct law. The arbitration was held, I have just checked it out. In Al-Ka-Chandreshwar versus Shamsul Ishwar Khan held that if any party fails to comply with the orders of the arbitral tribunal under section 17, then that party would be deemed to be guilty of contempt of the arbitral tribunal. 2017 I believe. I think. This is 4th May 2018. 18 yes. And again there is another judgment also. There is one article also. They will have to read. This is on 15th of May arbitration proceedings and contempt will be contempt of courts apply to arbitration proceedings. This is by Gaurav 30 on 15th of June on LiveLock. Yeah. And it was a excellent session as we always have with you. And it's always a pleasure connecting on a virtual platform and otherwise. And tomorrow friends, we will be having a session on what we normally talk into the criminal law suspension of sentence code of criminal procedure. This is by Murti Naik and advocate from Karnataka High Court. So do join us tomorrow at 5pm. And before we part for the day, everyone stay safe. Stay blessed. And in whatever manner you can contribute towards the society. You can do it moderately in a procedure. That is, we can always assist someone in the oxygen slender, etc. in a WhatsApp groups, you can support in all manner, whatever it can be done, one should do it. The situation is quite tense, but we should this time to shall pass. But in any manner, whatever we can do, we should always contribute to the society from what we are getting. Thank you friends. And again, those who want to like, share and subscribe to the channel, they can do that. And thank you, Mr. Pandya. It was a seamless session. Thank you.