In Quarantine Or On Marina Beach? Delhi High Court Says FB Posts Can't Be Treated As Determinative Of A Person's Location, Grants Relief To Lawyer

The Delhi High Court has said that posts on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of a person's location at a particular point of time, at least by a court.

Justice C Hari Shankar made the observation while dealing with a case wherein the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in December 2020 had asked the Bar Council of India to take action against two lawyers for allegedly falsely seeking adjournment, through a proxy counsel, on the ground that they were in quarantine due to COVID-19. The lawyers represented a respondent before IPAB.

Opposing the adjournment request, the applicant before the IPAB had shown the Facebook page of one of the lawyers which purportedly showed his last activity at Marina beach in Chennai. Dismissing the adjournment application with cost of Rs 5000, the IPAB had observed that it has been falsely represented that the main counsel is in quarantine while it has been shown through Facebook posts that he is on a holiday.

Justice C. Hari Shankar in the order said the IPAB had proceeded on the premise that Akshay Srivastava was the lead counsel, but there was no justification for the presumption. The court was told the arguing counsel was Suwarn Rajan Chauhan who was indeed under quarantine then, and expired on April 30 last year.

Observing that some of the earlier orders passed by IPAB show that Chauhan was the main counsel, the court said it is unable to sustain the impugned order insofar it refused to adjourn the matter on the premise that Srivastava was the lead counsel and that he was at Chennai on the date when the matter was taken.

"Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, before taking an adverse view against the Counsel on the basis of a Facebook post, and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India, the learned IPAB ought, at the very least, to have given an opportunity to the Counsel to explain the circumstances. Postings on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of the location of a person at a particular point of time, at least by a Court," said Justice Shankar.

The bench added that even if a court is to take an adverse view in that regard, the counsel ought to be given an opportunity to explain the position before such a view is taken.

"This Court is of the concerned opinion that the learned IPAB was needlessly strict in imposing costs and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India in such circumstances," said Justice Shankar.

The court said in view of the fact that Chauhan was indeed quarantined at the relevant time and expired thereafter, it is not entering into any other aspects of the matter regarding non-absence of counsel.

Setting aside the impugned order, the court restored the rectification petitions filed before the IPAB for re-hearing.

"In as much as the learned IPAB has subsequently been abolished, the rectification petitions would have to be heard by this Court. The Registry is directed to register the rectification petitions under the appropriate nomenclature and list them before the Court on 23rd February 2023 for hearing and disposal. Let the record from the learned IPAB be also requisitioned prior to the said date," said the court.

Title: VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1169

Click Here To Read Order