Social Media Comments Distorting Court Proceedings Require Serious Consideration: Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Assam MLA

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the misuse of social media platforms, where factually incorrect and unfounded statements are made regarding cases which are subjudice. Taking note of a Facebook post published by a party whose case was reserved for judgment, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against him for misleading the public about the court. 

The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi initiated contempt proceedings against Assam MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya,  who on March 20, published a Facebook post that the Court had favoured his case, when in fact the matter was only reserved for judgment on the same day.  The Court expressed displeasure at the recent trends of misusing social media platforms under the garb of the right to freedom of expression to tarnish the integrity of the Court and misinform the masses. 

It is a matter of serious concern that nowadays there has been a profuse misuse of social media platforms on which the messages, comments, articles etc. are being posted in respect of the matters pending in the Court. Though our shoulders are broad enough to bear any blame or criticism, the comments or posts published in respect of the matters pending in the Court, through social media platforms under the guise of the right to freedom of speech and expression, which have the tendency of undermining the authority of the Courts or of interfering with the course of justice, deserves serious consideration. 

Appearing on behalf of the contempt petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr Jaideep Gupta submitted that the published post interferes with the sanctity of judicial proceedings and administration of justice and thus, merits the court's interference. The contemnor was represented by Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy.   As per the post, the Court noted that the following was published - 

" The alleged contemnor, has published a post on his facebook account on 20.03.2024 to the effect that “the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled in his favour and that the allegations brought against him to defame him have fallen flat. He has been right this whole time, and it's those who brought allegations against him, have been proved as liars.”

It may be noted that the election petition pertains to the challenge to the 2021 Assembly election of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) leader and Assam MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya (contemnor herein). Barbhuiya was elected from the Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency in Assam, defeating the then-BJP candidate Aminul Haque Laskar (contempt petitioner). Lasker had filed an election petition before the Gauhati High Court claiming that the contemnor had engaged in corrupt practices while filing his nominations. The High Court dismissed Barbhuiya's application to reject the election petition. Challenging the High Court's decision, he approached the Supreme Court. 

The bench stressed that it was not acceptable to distort the image of the judiciary and the remarks of the judges during court proceedings. Such an attempt at distortion interferes with the confidence in the judicial mechanism and causes prejudice to the parties concerned. 

It is very usual that the Judges do react during the course of arguments being made by the lawyers, sometimes in favour of and sometimes against a party to the proceeding. However, that does not give any right or leeway to either of the parties or their lawyers to the proceedings to post comments or messages on social media distorting the facts or not disclosing the correct facts of the proceedings. The matter is required to be taken up more seriously when any such attempt is sought to be made by the party to the proceedings to cause prejudice to the proceedings or interfere with the course of administration of justice.

While issuing notice to the contemnor, the Court directed him stay physically present in the next hearing. A copy of the present order was further directed to be furnished before the Attorney General of India. The matter will now be heard after 4 weeks. 

It may be recalled that it was only on April 8, the bench had delivered the verdict of the said pending election petition. The Court had dismissed the election petition instituted against Barbhuiya and found the allegations levied by Laskar to be vague and devoid of any 'material facts'. A detailed report of the decision can be found here.  

Case Title : Aminul Haque Laskar v. Karim Uddin Barbhuiya 

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 292

 Click here to read the order