Delhi High Court Discharges Man In Contempt Case For Defaming Judges On Social Media, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine
Accepting unconditional apology, the Delhi High Court has discharged a man who was held guilty of criminal contempt of court for posting a video on social media defaming the judges and claiming that they were doing “illegal acts.”A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain accepted his unconditional apology and discharged him from the contempt...
Accepting unconditional apology, the Delhi High Court has discharged a man who was held guilty of criminal contempt of court for posting a video on social media defaming the judges and claiming that they were doing “illegal acts.”
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain accepted his unconditional apology and discharged him from the contempt proceedings.
The man submitted that he was willing to deposit Rs. 1 lakhs for welfare purposes to compensate for the public time wasted in the contempt proceedings.
The bench thus directed the man to deposit Rs. 1 lakhs, within two weeks, with the Registry.
It added that Rs. 25,000 each shall be disbursed in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, Delhi Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Fund, Nirmal Chhaya for Welfare of Children and Destitute Women and Bharat Ke Veer Fund.
While closing the contempt proceedings, the bench clarified that if in future the man acts in the same manner, strict action will be taken against him.
As per the man's affidavit, he said that at the time of uploading the video on his social media handle, his intention was neither to defame the Court nor the judges nor to scandalise them to lower the majesty of the Court.
It was his case that the video was uploaded by him just to express his opinion regarding the way the case was going on.
The man in question was a respondent in a case filed against him concerning a property in city's New Ashok Nagar.
The petitioner in the case averred that by posting the video in question, the man willfully interfered in the judicial work, obstructed in the administration of justice, scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court.
The court noted that the video specifically defamed the Judges and that the man alleged that he was disclosing the “true fate” of the Courts in front of “Janta ki Adaalat.”
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Gagan Gandhi, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Yogesh Verma, Mr. Kunal Khanna and Ms. Sonia Dhariwal, Advocates
Title: SUDHA PRASAD v. UDAY PAL SINGH
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 828