Chhattisgarh HC Orders Action For Reposting Court Proceedings On Social Media & Passing Derogatory Comments Against Judges

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Tuesday ordered the Registrar General to take measures and if need be issue contempt notices against persons who reposted the morphed video of Court proceeding and also against netizens who posted derogatory comments against the Judges and the Court.

While taking exception to the scurrilous social media attack on the Court's image and integrity, the Division Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed–

“It appears that “Judge bashing" and using derogatory and contemptuous language against the Judges and Lawyers has become a favourite pastime of some people. These statements tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Courts and cannot be permitted because, for functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount.”

Case Background

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the order of a Family Court which had denied him custody of his minor daughter. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that though the custody was granted to the respondent-wife, she is not fit for taking care of the minor child as she (the wife) was diagnosed with schizophrenia which had made her violent and self-harming.

For deciding the question of custody, the Court adhered to the principle of 'welfare of the child'. In order to assess the wish of the child, the Court interacted with her, where she expressed her desire to stay with her father and paternal grand-parents and conveyed discontentment over the manner in which her mother dealt with her during the period of custody.

Considering the factual situation and principles of law, the Court overturned the decision of the Family Court and granted custody of the child to the appellant-husband. It also granted visitation rights to the respondent-wife.

Views On Vilifying Remarks Against Judges

The Court took cognizance of the social media publications of the video of case hearing and reactions thereon. After the case was reserved for pronouncement of judgment, an application was filed by the respondent-wife seeking appropriate action against persons for tampering the live-streamed video of the Court.

Some derogatory comments posted by social media users were also annexed to the application. Disturbed by the disparaging comments, the Court observed,

“While fair and temperate criticism of the Court even if strong, may not be actionable, but attributing improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must be and will be taken.”

Justice Bhaduri further went on to rely on a number of Supreme Court as well as foreign decisions on the issue of contempt. It also referred to the following observation made by Lord Denning in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. v. Lennon, (1968) 3 All ER 304:

"Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking – the Judge is biased.”

The Court also reproduced the following remarks made by the Apex Court in Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh:

"It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court's administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties.”

The Division Bench also cited the judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (through Secretary General), wherein the Supreme Court had expressed affirmative views on desirability of live-streaming the proceedings of Courts, especially of the Supreme Court in constitutional matters.

In the said judgment, the top Court had framed certain guidelines to be followed while effectuating and implementing the live-streaming of Courts. One of such recommendations was that reproduction, re-broadcasting, re-publication, copying, storage and/or modification of any part(s) of the original broadcast of court proceedings, in any form, physical, digital or otherwise, must be prohibited.

“Any person engaging in such act(s) can be proceeded under, but not limited to, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Penal Code, 1860, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,” it was further suggested.

The Bench was of the firm opinion that nature of comments made did not aid to improve the justice delivery system, rather it indirectly extended threat to lawyers and tarnished the image of the Courts.

Thus, having regard for the aforesaid, the Court referred the matter to the Registrar General, who was directed to take appropriate measures, with the assistance of Registrar (Computerization)/Central Project Coordinator, in respect of “script with flaws” and to issue contempt notices, if need be, to the persons who posted the video proceedings of the Court in social media and who made the derogatory comments against the pleading of Advocates, Court and the Judges.

The Registrar (Judicial) was ordered to register appropriate proceedings separately and to place the same before the Court for consideration.

Case Title: K v. S

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Chh) 7

Case No: FA (MAT) No. 26 of 2021

Date of Judgment: April 02, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Ms. Palak Dwivedi & Mr. Sajal Kumar, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order