Does informing to appear before court come under sub judice

Sub judice refers to a legal principle that restricts public discussion or commentary on matters that are currently before the court. When a case is sub judice, it means that the legal proceedings are ongoing, and any statements or actions that could potentially influence the outcome of the trial should be avoided.

Here are some key points to consider:

Sub Judice Rule: The sub judice rule aims to prevent interference with the administration of justice. It prohibits discussing the merits of a case while it is still pending before the court. This includes both media coverage and public statements.

Informing the CEO: In your case, informing the company CEO about the proclamations against CW1 and CW2 may not necessarily violate the sub judice rule. However, it depends on the context and the nature of the information shared. If your communication with the CEO is purely factual (e.g., notifying about non-appearance in court), it may not be problematic. However, if your communication could potentially influence the trial or prejudice the case, it might be considered sub judice.

Balancing Act: Balancing the need for transparency and efficient trial proceedings with the sub judice rule can be challenging. While you want to speed up the trial, it’s essential to avoid any statements that could harm the fairness of the legal process.

As the CEO is neither a party to the pending litigation nor had given any undertaking to produce the CWs before court,  there's no legally reason or justification to unnecessarily involve the CEO into this litigation. 

This may even lead to any other legal complication.

Thank you for the reply.

I forgot to mention that I also addressed and included CP and SP in Bcc when I sent email to the CEO. Apart from proclamation I stated other creepy things done by HR. So company cannot do much as fault is on their side.

Police called me several times and informed CW1 have changed their address and phone number. I only know their work location. It is CEO moral responsibility to make his employees obey the law. Actually, CEO is aware of entire story. It all started with me giving compliant against HR to CP. Later a false case was filed by HR. Later I sent greviance to CEO and HRC. I have document proofs, emails, call recordings and photos but HR is not willing to face the court since it will get company in trouble with a legal suit later.

If the company CEO or the HR are not the parties to the pending litigation then dragging them both into this will be an act of defamation, they may even sue you for defaming them by such acts.

You should firstly understand the relief sought and how to get the relief by the process of law.

You cannot take law into your hands

CW2 is HR there are proclamations against him. CW2 used CW1 to file false 354. Stating facts does not amount to defamation. It was a three page email all facts were mentioned with dates. I merely asked them to appear for trial to prove the said allegation made against me nothing more than that. They dragged the case for seven years and goes to PP to compromise. At this point they need pay damages for vexation.

You are neither the court nor an authority authorized by court to do their work,  hence don't cross your limits lest you will be held liable for legal consequences. 

Court issues proclamations mechanically after 10 years the case gets disposed automatically. Already 7 years have completed. Later there is not much I can do legally. I am confident that I can prove this false in court so I am willing to take risk. The previous magistrate told me in open court that he would issue proclamation even 50 times. He told me to approach High court as trial court is of no help in this matter. I have see a High court judgment where there are multiple proclamations. The High court asked trial court magistrate to assign a SP to summon the witness. Making accused come to court for 7 years is itself a punishment.

What you said is true in general sense. Those who are reading this post I would not recommenmd them to do what I did. It is based on merits of the case and I know what I am doing.