Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., allowed the injunction application filed by the TV Today Network finding they have established prima facie case in their favour.

Present suit was preferred by a media conglomerate which transmits and broadcasts news etc. through print as well as electronic media.

By the instant suit, the plaintiff sought a decree of a permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant 1 restraining him from making the systematic attack on plaintiff’s reputation by making false and baseless tweets.

Defendant 1 levelled allegations against the plaintiff and one of its main anchors of having taken a sum of Rs 8 crores to interview a personality presently in news. It was also alleged that at the time of the birth of the said anchor itself, nurse concerned made obnoxious remarks and that the said anchor is involved in making fake news. The said anchor was also compared to a person, who is facing extradition proceedings.

High Court found that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case in its favour.

Bench stated that till the next date of hearing, defendant 1 is restrained from directly or indirectly publishing, re-publishing, sending or posting any tweet or information either in the electronic form or through the internet, email, social media or any print or communication media whatsoever, the statement or post which is derogatory/defamatory in its contents to the plaintiff or its top management or its anchors or its other office-bearers.

Defendant 2 has been directed to suspend/block the Twitter handles of defendant 1 and to file the basic subscription information of the account holder of the Twitter accounts impugned i.e. ‘@theanuragkts’ and ‘@theanuragoffice’ in the Court and supply a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the plaintiff as a password-protected document before the next date of hearing. [T.V. Today Network Ltd. v. Anurag Srivastava, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1354, decided on 24-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., held that no coercive action shall be taken against the co-founder of ALT News with regard to the FIR alleging him to have harassed a minor girl on twitter.

Journalist

Petitioner who is a journalist and co-founder of news website outlet ALT News and due to the nature of his work is often abused, threatened and demeaned by people.

Two separate FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. In one FIR it has been submitted that the petitioner had shared an old image of his wearing traditional Indian attire and one Jagdish Singh from his twitter handle replied to this image “once a jihadi is always a jihadi”.

In July again the petitioner tweeted a simple tweet, wherein again Jagdish Singh from his twitter handle replied to the petitioner with a vulgarly worded image Tu toh bada mad****** nikla re”.

Again a similar instance occurred to which, this time the petitioner re-tweeted on Jagdish Singh’s tweet displaying a picture which was visible to the public wherein Jagdish Singh was standing with his daughter whose face was pixelated/blurred by the petitioner and he wrote “Hello Jagdish Singh, Does your cute granddaughter know about your part-time job of abusing people on social media? I suggest you change your profile pic”.

Further, the petitioner argued that the tweet would not reveal if it was intending to cause harassment to the minor girl and rather the said tweet was made on respondent 3 personal account.

06-08-2020: Respondent 3 made a complaint to respondent 2 against the petitioner. Only through twitter, the petitioner got to know that respondent 2 has taken cognizance of the complaint filed.

Petitioners’ Grievance

Petitioner submitted that the copy of the FIR was never supplied to him and for this reason, he could not respond to the allegations made against him.

Bench directed respondent 1 and 4 to supply a copy of the present FIR to the petitioner and should also file a status report on or before the next date.

Response from the police and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has also been sought.

Though respondent 2 submitted she was performing her duty as an informant, however, petitioner states that the information annexed at page 40of the paper book comes from the twitter handle of respondent 2 and the said information was made public, probably to harass the petitioner.

Respondent 2 shall also file a reply on or before the next date.

Matter has been listed for 08-12-2020, till then no coercive action to be taken. [Mohammed Zubair v. State of GNCT, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1189, decided on 09-09-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has sentenced advocate Prashant Bhushan with a fine or Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years. It had found advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt on 14.08.2020 in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets.

In the 82-pages long verdict on sentence, the Court said that it not on one occasion but on several occasions, not only gave opportunity but also directly or indirectly pursuaded the contemnor to express regret. Further, the Attorney General had also suggested that it was in the fitness of things that a contemnor expresses regret and withdraws the allegation made in the affidavit in reply, however, the request was not heeded to by the contemnor and he gave wide publicity to the second statement submitted before the Court on 24.08.2020 prior to the same being tendered to the Court. He also gave various interviews with regard to sub judice matter, thereby further attempting to bring down the reputation of the Court.

“If we do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of  Re.1/­ (Rupee one).”

KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE VERDICT

On Judges being the silent sufferers of allegations against them

The Judges have to express their opinion by their judgments, and they cannot enter into public debate or go to press. It is very easy to make any allegation against the Judges in the newspaper and media. Judges have to be the silent sufferer of such allegations, and they cannot counter such allegations publicly by going on public platforms, newspapers or media

“Thus, it is necessary that when they cannot speak out, they cannot be made to suffer the loss of their reputation and prestige, which is essential part of the right to live with dignity.”  

On the Press Conference dated 12.01.2018 of the then four senior-­most Judges of the Supreme Court

Concept of equality before law, what is permissible not as to what is impermissible. Truth can be the defence to the Judges also, but they are bound by their judicial norms, ethics, and code of conduct.

“We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer Judges.”

On Prashant Bhushan being actively involved pursuing various Public Interest Litigations

“Merely because a lawyer is involved in the filing of the public interest litigation for the public good it does not arm him to harm the very system of which he is a part.”

An advocate cannot forget his ethical duty and responsibility and cannot denigrate the very system of which he/she is an integral part. Fair criticism is not to be silenced, but an advocate has to remind himself/herself, where he/she crosses the zone of propriety, and the Court cannot continuously ignore it, and the system cannot be made to suffer

On the Statements made by retired Judges, journalists, and others in Press/Media

The Court cannot abdicate its duty and has to be uninfluenced by the statements published in various articles published in the media and opinions expressed therein. It has to decide the case uninfluenced by such opinions.

On the argument that the Court will be criticized, in case it inflicts any punishment upon Prashant Bhushan

“While exercising our judicial functions, we cannot take into consideration whether we will be praised or criticized for the judgment which we render.  We are required to decide the cases on the basis of the law as it correctly stands, in our perception and understanding.  We are not expected to decide the matter on the basis as to whether there will be criticism of the judgment or not. We have to be always ready for its fair criticism.”

On the lawyers and litigants going to press or media in a sub judice matter

Prashant Bhushan talked to the press and media and the statement which was pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2020, was also published well in advance in extenso, word to word, in the newspaper and media. If such kind of action is resorted to in a sub judice matter, that too by an advocate who is facing a criminal contempt, it virtually tantamount to using a forum or platform which is not supposed to be used ethically and legally.

“In a sub judice matter, releasing such statement to the press in advance is an act of impropriety and has the effect of interfering with the judicial process and the fair decision making and is clearly an attempt to coerce the decision of the Court by the influence of newspaper and media, which cannot be said to be conducive for the fair administration of justice and would further tantamount to undue interference in the independent judicial making process which is the very foundation of institution of administration of justice.”

On sentencing

  • The contention that he is a lawyer having of 35 years of standing and has also pursued various public interest litigations would no doubt  be a relevant factor while balancing the decision to be taken by the Court.  However, at the same time, the uncalled statements made in the affidavit for pursuing truth as a defence can also not be ignored.
  • Lawyers’ noble profession will lose all its significance and charm and dignity if the lawyers are permitted to make any malicious, scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the institution of which they are part. The lawyers are supposed to be fearlessly independent and robust but at the same time respectful to the institution.
  • It is apparent that in both the statements made by the contemnor, he is sticking to his ground, and he is not at all realizing that any wrong was done by him to the institution. At the same time, he has expressed the faith in the institution and he has submitted that an apology cannot be a mere incantation and an apology has to be as the Court itself put be sincerely made.  He has further stated that he made the statement bona fide and with truthful details which had not been dealt with by the Court.  He is insistent and has no remorse about what he has stated in the defence.
  • Bhushan not gone by the advice of the learned Attorney General to withdraw the same and to take if off the record. Being a person well versed with law, he ought to have given due weightage to the advice rendered by the learned Attorney General who has pleaded not to sentence him, at the same time maintained that the statements made in the affidavit in reply could not be taken into consideration for considering the case of Mr. Prashant Bhushan of truth as a defence.

“When senior most functionary in the legal profession of the stature of the learned Attorney General was giving an advice to express regret and withdraw the wild allegations a lawyer of such a long standing was expected to give due respect to it.  Even our request made to him has gone in vain.”

  • Simple issuance of warning is not going to suffice in the instant case.

“We are not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice. His conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice and in noble profession, and no remorse is shown for the harm done to the institution to which he belongs.  At the same time, we cannot retaliate merely because the contemnor has made a statement that he is neither invoking the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence.”

Sentence 

A fine or Re.1/­ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice.

[In re: Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 698, decided on 31.08.2020]


Read more on the judgment here

Read Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s supplementary reply here

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari has reserved its verdict on sentence after it found advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt on 14.08.2020 in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets.

Asking advocate Prashant Bhushan to tender an apology for his remarks, the Court said that there is “no harm in apologising if a mistake has been made”.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Bhushan, argued

“This institution must have criticism and not just criticism but extreme criticism.” 

He further said that his client, Bhushan, had in his submissions stated that he has the highest regard for the institution but he has his opinion about last four Chief Justices of India (CJIs) about the way in which this court has gone wrong.

“We criticise this court when we feel sincere about this institution. We know our responsibility and our respect for the institution. Don’t make him a martyr,” 

To this, Justice Mishra said,

“If we are going to destroy each other, who will have faith in this institution? You have to be tolerant, see what the court is doing and why. Don’t just attack. Judges can’t go to press to defend themselves or explain. Whatever we have to say, we have to write in our judgments,” 

Expressing his displeasure over the way the tweets were written, Justice Arun Mishra, said, that judges are condemned, their families are humiliated and they can’t even speak.

“You are a leader of the bar. We expect you to be impartial. You may have love and affection for anyone but we want you to be fair. Don’t take sides,”

Yesterday Bhushan, in a supplementary reply in the suo motu contempt proceedings, submitted that if he retracts his statement before the court that he otherwise believes to be true would amount to the contempt of his conscience in his eyes.

“If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem,”

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice.

(With inputs from ANI)


Read more on the judgment here

Read Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s supplementary reply here

Hot Off The PressNews

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who has been held guilty of contempt of court for his contemptuous tweets has refused to retract his statements or tender an apology in the matter. Last week, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, jj has asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to take 2-3 days to reconsider his ‘defiant statement’.

Bhushan, in a supplementary reply in the suo motu contempt proceedings, submitted that if he retracts his statement before the court that he otherwise believes to be true would amount to the contempt of his conscience in his eyes.

“If I retract a statement before this court that I otherwise believe to be true or offer an insincere apology, that in my eyes would amount to the contempt of my conscience and of an institution that I hold in highest esteem,”

He said that he has nothing but the highest regard for the institution of the Supreme Court.

“I believe that the Supreme Court is the last bastion of hope for the protection of fundamental rights, the watchdog institutions and indeed for constitutional democracy itself. It has rightly been called the most powerful court in the democratic world, and often an exemplar for courts across the globe. … Today in these troubling times, the hopes of the people of India vest in this Court to ensure the rule of law and the Constitution and not an untrammeled rule of the executive,”

Bhushan said that this casts a duty, especially for an officer of this court like himself, to speak up, when he believes there is a deviation from its sterling record.

“Therefore I expressed myself in good faith, not to malign the Supreme Court or any particular Chief Justice, but to offer constructive criticism so that the court can arrest any drift away from its long-standing role as a guardian of the Constitution and custodian of peoples’ rights,”

He further said that his tweets represented this bonafide belief that he continues to hold and added that the public expression of these beliefs was in line with his higher obligations as a citizen and a loyal officer of the court.

“… an apology for expression of these beliefs, conditional or unconditional, would be insincere. An apology cannot be a mere incantation and any apology has to, as the court has itself put it, be sincerely made. … This is especially so when I have made the statements bonafide and pleaded truths with full details, which have not been dealt with by the Court,”

Reserving the order on sentence on August 20, 2020, the Court had said,

“In case, apology is submitted, the case to be posted for consideration on the same, on 25.08.2020.”

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice.

(With inputs from ANI)

Read more on the judgment here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, jj has asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to take 2-3 days to reconsider his ‘defiant statement’, refusing to apologise for his contemptuous tweets. Bhushan said that he will consult his lawyers and think over the Court’s suggestion in 2-3 days.

“We have given time to the contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires.”

When the Attorney General KK Venugopal urged the Court not to award any punishment to Prashant Bhushan in the contempt case, the Court said that it cannot consider the said request Bhushan reconsiders his earlier stand of not apologising for his tweets.

“The tone, tenor and content of Prashant Bhushan’s statement makes it worse; is it defence or aggravation.”

The bench said that it can be very lenient if there is realization of mistake.

At the outset of the hearing, Bhushan had submitted before the Court that the arguments on quantum of sentence in the contempt proceedings, in which he has been held guilty, be heard by another bench. The bench rejected the submission but gave assurance to Bhushan that no punishment will be acted upon till his review against the order convicting him in the case will be decided.

Reserving the order, the Court said,

“In case, apology is submitted, the case to be posted for consideration on the same, on 25.08.2020.”

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdictsaid that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice

[In re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 663, order dated 20.08.2020]

(With inputs from PTI)

Read more on the judgment here

Hot Off The PressNews

“Trenchant criticisim, commentary, satire and homour help build institutions in a free society.”

After a group of lawyers, released a Statement appealing the Supreme Court to not give effect to the judgment dated 14.08.2020 that found advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets, the Bar Association of India has also expressed dismay on the manner in which Suo Moto contempt jurisdiction was exercised by the Supreme Court against a member of legal profession.

“Judgments that curb the exercise of freedom of speech and expression by a member of the Bar by resort to suo motu powers is conspicuously old fashioned. The reputation of the Supreme Court of India cannot be dislodged by a couple of tweets.”

Stating that the stature of the Supreme Court would stand enhanced by allowing criticism rather than taking umbrage at such remarks, BAI writes that the exercise of contempt jurisdiction in this manner has potential for more self harm than the avowed purpose of safeguarding the prestige of the institution.

Yesterday, a battery of lawyers, appealed to the Supreme Court that,

“… the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt.”

The Statement went on to state that the judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken. From the days of the supersession of judges and the events thereafter, it has been the Bar that has been the first to stand in defence of the independence of the judiciary.

“A bar silenced under the threat of contempt, will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the Court. A silenced bar, cannot lead to a strong court.”

The Bar Association of India is Federation of the Supreme Court, High Court, District Court and other local Bar Associations, Law Societies in India and the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), cumulatively representing as a voluntary body almost the entire legal profession, apart from having a distinguished individual membership.

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdict, said that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”


Read more on the judgment here

Read the Public Statement by Advocates on Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After it refused to accept the explanation of advocate Prashant Bhushan in the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and MR Shah, JJ has framed larger questions in the matter that will have far-reaching ramifications.

On August 10, 2020, in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 635, the Court had noticed that that further hearing was required in the matter.

“Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to “Corruption” would per se amount to Contempt of Court, the matter is required to be heard. “

Issues framed

  • In case a public statement as to corruption by a particular Judge(s) is permissible, under what circumstances and on what basis, it can be made, and safeguards, if any, to be observed in that regard ?
  • What procedure is to be adopted to make complaint in such cases when the allegation is about the conduct of a sitting Judge ?
  • Whether against retired Judge(s), any allegation as to corruption can be made publicly, thereby shaking the confidence of general public in the judiciary; and whether the same would be punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act?

The Court will now hear the matter on August 25, 2020.

[Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 651, order dated 17.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

“An independent judiciary consisting of independent judges and lawyers, is the basis of the rule of law in a Constitutional democracy. Mutual respect and the absence of coercion, are the hallmarks of a harmonious relationship between the bar and bench. Any tilting of the balance, one way or the other, is deleterious both to the institution and the nation.”

A battery of lawyers, including Senior Advocates have released a Statement appealing the Supreme Court to not give effect to the judgment dated 14.08.2020 that found advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets. 

“… the judgment must not be given effect to, until a larger bench, sitting in open court after the pandemic has the opportunity to review the standards of criminal contempt.”

The Statement reads that an independent judiciary does not mean that judges are immune from scrutiny and comment. It is the duty of lawyers to freely bring any shortcomings to the notice of bar, bench and the public at large.

“While some of us may have divergent views on the advisability and content of Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s two tweets, we are unanimously of the view that no contempt of court was intended or committed especially when contrasted with the normal standard that “Justice is not a cloistered virtue… She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken comments of ordinary men”.”

While Mr. Prashant Bhushan as a lawyer of good standing of the Supreme Court, may not be an ordinary man, his tweets do not say anything out of the ordinary, other than what is routinely expressed about the court’s working in recent years by many on public fora and on social media. Even some retired judges of the Supreme Court have expressed somewhat similar views.

The Statement goes on तो state that the judgment does not restore the authority of the court in the eyes of the public. Rather, it will discourage lawyers from being outspoken. From the days of the supersession of judges and the events thereafter, it has been the Bar that has been the first to stand in defence of the independence of the judiciary.

“A bar silenced under the threat of contempt, will undermine the independence and ultimately the strength of the Court. A silenced bar, cannot lead to a strong court.”

The lawyers also express a deep sense of disappointment about the Supreme Court’s disregard of the presence of the Attorney General KK Venugopal during the hearing and its refusal to seek his valuable opinion in the matter, which is mandated even as per contempt law.

The Statement concludes by saying that:

“We do believe that the Supreme Court will hear the Voice of the People expressed all around in last 72 hours on the subject and take corrective steps to prevent miscarriage of Justice and restore the confidence and respect that Citizens have generally reposed in it.”

Here’s the list of the Lawyers who have signed the Statement:

Background of the issue:

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ, in a 108-pages long verdict, said that:

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”


Read more on the judgment here

Read the Public Statement on Prashant Bhushan’s contempt case here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The scurrilous allegations, which are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the Court are not expected from a person, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing. In our considered view, it cannot be said that the above tweets can be said to be a fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, made bona fide in the public interest.”

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has, in a 108-pages long verdict, held advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets. It held,

The tweets which are based on the distorted facts, in our considered view, amount to committing of ‘criminal contempt’.

Stating that in order to protect the larger public interest, such attempts of attack on the highest judiciary of the country should be dealt with firmly, the Court noticed that Advocate Bhushan has been practicing for last 30 years in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court and has consistently taken up many issues of public interest concerning the health of our democracy and its institutions and in particular the functioning of our judiciary and especially its accountability. Bhushan being part of the institution of administration of justice, instead of protecting the majesty of law has indulged into an act, which tends to bring disrepute to the institution of administration of justice. He is expected to act as a responsible officer of this Court.

Stressing upon the importance of Judiciary and the need to protect the institution of the Supreme Court from malicious attacks, the Court said that judiciary is considered as a last hope when a citizen fails to get justice anywhere. The Supreme Court is the epitome of the Indian judiciary. An attack on the Supreme Court does not only have the effect of tending an ordinary litigant of losing the confidence in the Supreme Court but also may tend to lose the confidence in the mind of other judges in the country in its highest court. A possibility of the other judges getting an impression that they may not stand protected from malicious attacks, when the Supreme Court has failed to protect itself from malicious insinuations, cannot be ruled out.

“No doubt, that the Court is required to be magnanimous, when criticism is made of the judges or of the institution of administration of justice. However, such magnanimity cannot be stretched to such an extent, which may amount to weakness in dealing with a malicious, scurrilous, calculated attack on the very foundation of the institution of the judiciary and thereby damaging the very foundation of the democracy.”

What prompted the Court to initiate the contempt proceedings

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

On Tweet 1

Advocate Bhushan told the Court that the said tweet is divided the tweet into 3 parts:

  • First part: democracy has been substantially destroyed in India during the last six years.
  • Second part: the Supreme Court has played a substantial role in allowing the destruction of the democracy
  • Third part: the role of the last 4 Chief Justice’s in particular in allowing it.

While the Court did not go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the first part of the tweet, inasmuch as it did not want to convert the proceeding into a platform for political debate, it said that the said the remaining parts of the tweet undermine the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law.

Stating that an attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand, the Court said that the tweet has the effect of destabilising the very foundation of this important pillar of the Indian democracy.

“The tweet clearly tends to give an impression, that the Supreme Court, which is a highest constitutional court in the country, has in the last six years played a vital role in destruction of the Indian democracy. There is no manner of doubt, that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary.”

It further noticed that there cannot be any manner of doubt, that the said tweet is directed against the Supreme Court, tending to give an impression, that the Supreme Court has a particular role in the destruction of democracy in the last six years and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in the same. It is clear, that the criticism is against the entire Supreme Court and the last four CJIs.

“The criticism is not against a particular judge but the institution of the Supreme Court and the institution of the Chief Justice of India. The impression that the said tweet tends to convey is that the judges who have presided in the Supreme Court in the period of last six years have particular role in the destruction of Indian democracy and the last four CJIs had a more particular role in it.”

Even on Bhushan’s own admission, he has expressed his opinion, that the Supreme Court has played a substantial role in allowing the destruction of democracy and further admitted, that the third part is regarding the role of last four Chief Justices in particular, in allowing it.

ों Tweet 2

This tweet was also considered in two parts:

  • First part: “CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet…”
  • Second part: “…at a time when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice.”

While the Court noticed that the first part of the tweet could be said to be a criticism made against the CJI as an individual and not against the CJI as CJI. However, the second part of the tweet attempts to give and impression to a layman that the CJI is riding a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet, at a time when he has kept the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice.

On this the Court said that the date on which the CJI is alleged to have taken a ride on a motorbike is during the period when the Supreme Court was on a summer vacation. In any case, even during the said period, the vacation Benches of the Court were regularly functioning.

The statement, that the Supreme Court is in lockdown is factually incorrect even to the knowledge of the contemnor. It is a common knowledge, that on account of COVID-19 pandemic the physical functioning of the Court was required to be suspended. This was in order to avoid mass gathering in the Supreme Court and to prevent outbreak of pandemic. However, immediately after suspension of physical hearing, the Court started functioning through video conferencing.

“From 23.3.2020 till 4.8.2020, various benches of the Court have been sitting regularly and discharging their duties through video conferencing. The total number of sittings that the various benches had from 23.3.2020 till 4.8.2020 is 879. During this period, the Court has heard 12748 matters. In the said period, this Court has dealt with 686 writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court refused to accept the contention that the said statement was a bona fide criticism made by him on account of his anguish of non-functioning of the courts physically. His contention, that on account of non-physical functioning of the Supreme Court for the last more than three months, the fundamental rights of citizens, such as those in detention, those destitute and poor, and others facing serious and urgent grievances were not being addressed or taken up for redressal, as stated herein above, is false to his own knowledge.

“He has made such a scandalous and malicious statement having himself availed the right of an access to justice during the said period, not only as a lawyer but also as a litigant.”

[In Re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 646, decided on 14.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the bench headed by Arun Mishra, J refused to accept the explanation of advocate Bhushan and said that further hearing is required in the matter.

“Before reaching to any finding whether the statement made as to “Corruption” would per se amount to Contempt of Court, the matter is required to be heard. “

The will now hear the matter on August 17, 2020.

Earlier, on August 4, the Court had said that there is a thin line between freedom of speech and the need to protect the dignity of the judiciary as an institution and it sought to balance both. The hearing in the 11-year-old case which pertains to an interview given by Bhushan to Tehelka where he said that half of past 16 Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.

On July 22, 2020, in another matter, a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ had issued notice in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter.

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

In his reply to the suo motu petition, Bhushan said that

“The expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court…”

According to PTI, in a 142-page reply affidavit filed through lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, the activist lawyer has referred to several Supreme Court judgments, speeches of former and
serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases. He has also stood by his two tweets.’

“To prevent a citizen from forming, holding, and expressing a bonafide opinion’ in public interest on any institution that is a creature of the Constitution is not a reasonable restriction and violates the basic principles on which our democracy is founded.”

The affidavit said the power of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should be utilized to aid in administration of justice and not to shut out voices that seek accountability from the court for the errors of omissions and commissions.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for advocate Prashant Bhushan, in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Bhushan, asked the Court,

“This is criticism… Why don’t you take it objectively?”

He also submitted that if a judge is defamed, he should seek relief in the ordinary laws of defamation.

He further submitted that a sitting judge, who went on to become a CJI, had ‘criticised’ the functioning of the Supreme Court in a presser in January 2018. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, one of the four judges who had met the media, went on to become the 46th Chief Justice and Justice Bobde’s immediate predecessor. Dave, in his submission said,

“The holding of January 2018 press conference was fully justified. If the then CJI was not listening to their points, what could they do? If citizens stand up and criticise the system, say everything is not hunky-dory, how can it be contempt?”

The Court has reserved the judgment in the said matter. Read more

[Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 635, order dated 10.08.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: “This is criticism… Why don’t you take it objectively?” asked senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for advocate Prashant Bhushan, in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Bhushan.

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

Stating that the right to dissent and free speech cannot be controlled by contempt proceedings, Dave told a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ that

“Contempt is to be used sparingly and only for administration of justice. If a judge is defamed, he should seek relief in the ordinary laws of defamation,”

He further submitted that a sitting judge, who went on to become a CJI, had ‘criticised’ the functioning of the Supreme Court in a presser in January 2018. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, one of the four judges who had met the media, went on to become the 46th Chief Justice and Justice Bobde’s immediate predecessor. Dave, in his submission said,

“The holding of January 2018 press conference was fully justified. If the then CJI was not listening to their points, what could they do? If citizens stand up and criticise the system, say everything is not hunky-dory, how can it be contempt?”

The Court has reserved the judgment.

In January, 2018, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice J. Chelameswar, along with Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Kurian Jospeh, held a press conference at his residence to put an end to the speculations making rounds over the differences between the judges and the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, over the assignment of cases.

A letter addressed to the then CJI Justice Dipak Misra by the aforementioned judges stated:

“There have been instances where case having far-reaching consequences for the Nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justices of this Court selectively to the benches “of their preference” without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs. We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.” 

[In Re Prashant Bhushan, SMC (Crl.) No. 1/2020, order dated 05.08.2020]

(With inputs from The Hindu)


ALSO READ

Preserve judiciary or democracy will fail: 4 SC judges led by Justice Chelameswar in their address to the nation

Read what the 4 senior most judges of the country wrote in their letter to the CJI in January 2018


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: In the 2009 contempt petition against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelka Tarun Tejpal, the bench headed by Arun Mishra, J said that there is a thin line between freedom of speech and the need to protect the dignity of the judiciary as an institution and it sought to balance both. The hearing in the 11-year-old case which pertains to an interview given by Bhushan to Tehelka where he said that half of past 16 Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt, was conducted in-camera.

On July 22, 2020, a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ had issued notice in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter. The Court will hear that matter tomorrow. The Court, in it’s order, recorded:

“We are, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large.”

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

In his reply to the suo motu petition, Bhushan said that

“The expression of opinion, however outspoken, disagreeable or unpalatable to some, cannot constitute contempt of court…”

According to PTI, in a 142-page reply affidavit filed through lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, the activist lawyer has referred to several Supreme Court judgments, speeches of former and
serving judges on contempt of court and the stifling of dissent in a democracy and his views on judicial actions in some cases. He has also stood by his two tweets.’

“To prevent a citizen from forming, holding, and expressing a bonafide opinion’ in public interest on any institution that is a creature of the Constitution is not a reasonable restriction and violates the basic principles on which our democracy is founded.”

The affidavit said the power of contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution should be utilized to aid in administration of justice and not to shut out voices that seek accountability from the court for the errors of omissions and commissions.


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has issued notice in the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter. The Court has asked Bhushan to file a detailed response by next date of hearing i.e. 05.08.2020.

The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan. He had recently criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets which prompted the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu contempt petition against him. Here are the tweets:

The Court, in it’s order, recorded:

“We are, prima facie, of the view that the aforesaid statements on Twitter have brought the administration of justice in disrepute and are capable of undermining the dignity and authority of the Institution of Supreme Court in general and the office of the Chief Justice of India in particular, in the eyes of public at large.”

The Court also issued notice to the Attorney General for India.

Sajan Poovayya, appearing on behalf of the Twitter, submitted that the Twitter Inc., California , USA is the correct description on which the tweets were made by Prashant Bhushan. The Court, hence, also issued a notice to Twitter.

Earlier this year, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ, had granted protection to Bhushan from any coercive action in an FIR lodged against him at Rajkot in Gujarat for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of the Hindus through one of his tweets. He had tweeted:

Last year, the Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Union of India filed a contempt petition against Bhushan after he made some comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao. Here’s what he had tweeted:

[In re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 588 , order dated 22.07.2020]


SCC Online is now on Telegram and Instagram. Join our channel @scconline on Telegram and @scconline_ on Instagram and stay updated with the latest legal news from within and outside India

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ will today be hearing the suo motu contempt petition initiated by the Supreme Court against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter India. The matter deals with certain tweets made by Bhushan, the details of the same are, however, not known yet.

According to Indian Express, the Court will also take up on July 24 another contempt matter against Bhushan and former Editor-In-Chief of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal. The 2009 matter pertains to statements by Bhushan against former Chief Justices and the then Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia in an interview to Tehelka.

Bhushan who isn’t afraid to mince his words and quite actively and openly shares his view point of Twitter on all the happenings in the Country, often finds himself surrounded with controversies.

Earlier this year, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ, had granted protection to Bhushan from any coercive action in an FIR lodged against him at Rajkot in Gujarat for allegedly hurting religious sentiments of the Hindus through one of his tweets. He had tweeted:

Last year, the Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Union of India filed a contempt petition against Bhushan after he made some comments on Twitter regarding the appointment of former interim chief of CBI M Nageswara Rao. Here’s what he had tweeted:

 

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

The Press Council of India is a statutory, quasi-judicial authority set-up by an Act of the Parliament. It functions under the Press Council Act, 1978.

Section 14 of the Press Council Act,1978, empowers the Council to warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist concerned or disapprove the conduct of the editor or the journalist if it finds that a newspaper or a news agency has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or a working journalist has committed any professional misconduct, on the receipt of complaint or otherwise.

Electronic media, TV news channels, social media i.e. Whatsapp/ twitter/Facebook do not come under the jurisdiction of the Press Council of India.

Complaints against and by the print media are adjudicated by the Council by adhering to the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979.


Press Council of India

[Press Release dt. 14-04-2020]

PR/9/2020-PCI

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: While hearing Facebook Inc’s petition asking Supreme Court to hear all cases related to demands for linking Aadhaar to social media accounts and tracing the source of WhatsApp messages, the Court said that there has to be a balance between privacy and how to govern. The court, hence, issued notice to Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, the centre and Tamil Nadu asking for their response by September 13 on whether the petitions should be transferred from high courts across India to the Supreme Court. Various cases are being heard by the high courts of Madras, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.

The Court said,

“There is a conflict between privacy and how the government should run the country when crimes are committed. There has to be a balance… under what condition information can be given and to whom,”

Facebook and WhatsApp, asking that all petitions be transferred to the top court, said it was a matter of high magnitude and affected the privacy of the entire nation.

On Monday, the Tamil Nadu government had told the Supreme Court that social media profiles of users need to be linked with Aadhaar numbers to check the circulation of fake, defamatory and pornographic content as also anti-national and terror material. However, Facebook Inc resisted the state’s suggestion on grounds that the sharing of the 12-digit Aadhaar number, the biometric unique identity, would violate privacy policy of users.

Facebook Inc said it cannot share the Aadhaar number with a third party as the content on its instant messaging WhatsApp was end-to-end encrypted and no one can access it.

The Tamil Nadu government, which is deep into a case related to the deadly Blue Whale game, argued that the centre was struggling to find out who the creator of the game was and who gives directions. Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing Tamil Nadu, said,

“Someone says he is a young person from Russia. A number of people have died in India playing the Blue Whale. Let the Madras High Court continue with its hearing,”

The Supreme Court said,

“We are aware of Blue Whale. What is happening in dark web is worse than Blue Whale. The idea of the Madras High court expanding the issue was that if need be, shouldn’t the intermediary inform the police about details of person for crime detection? We are not examining the merits of the case, only dealing with the transfer of the cases to the Supreme Court.”

(Source: NDTV)

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by media,

Violation of Free Speech Law | Donald Trump, the U.S. President cannot block critics from his twitter account as the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan stated the following:

“The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilises a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise – open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.”

The above ruling case from the case on behalf of seven individuals who had been blocked by the president.

It has been alleged that the said Act by President Trump is in violation of the Constitution.

The Appeals Court upheld a lower court ruling in the case of Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump that the President’s Twitter account constituted a “public forum.”

Background

The Knight First Amendment Institute at New York’s Columbia University filed a lawsuit in July 2017 against the President on behalf of seven Twitter users, alleging that he did not have the right to block individuals who posted critical comments in response to his tweets.


[Source: BBC]

[Image Credits: BBC]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan J., imposed the fine on Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawala of Rs 10 lakhs each for hurting the sentiments of the Jain Community by insulting the Jain Saint Tarun Sagar on twitter, even though the FIR was quashed against the criminal charges registered against them. 

A case under Sections 295-A, 153-A and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 was filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioners (Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawala) for hurting the belief, religious feelings of the Jain Community and Jain Monk Tarun Sagar. The petitioner posted the photograph of Jain Monk (Muni) Tarun Sagar, when he was addressing the Haryana State Legislative Assembly and another photo by way of Photoshop, the photograph of a lady whose face was not shown, in a sitting posture wearing only undergarments was clubbed and posted along with the photograph of Jain Muni by Petitioner 2. 

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Karuna Nandy, submitted that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner to commit any offence and even the petitioner has tendered his apology to the Jain Muni Tarun Sagar, which was accepted by him by way of print media. She further submitted that a rational criticism of religious tenants, pounded in restraint language does not amount to an offence either under Sections 153-A or 295-A IPC.

Learned counsel for the respondent, Khushbir K. Bhullar, submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioners for hurting the religious feelings of the complainant and the followers of the Jain Saints. The entire Jain fraternity is defamed before the public in large by using electronic media, to spread the religious discontent and hurt their sentiments and therefore, the FIR was rightly registered. 

The Court opined that the country has witnessed large scale violent protest on incitement made by using social media platform, thereby, causing extensive damage to public property and therefore it was appropriate to impose the costs of Rs 10 lakhs each on the petitioners – Vishal Dadlani and Tehseen Poonawala, so that in future they may not mock at any head of a religious sect, just to gain publicity on social media like Twitter.  The Court ordered that the FIR registered against the parties to be quashed and gave the following instruction for the cost by parties i.e. “The petitioner – Tehseen Poonawala will deposit the costs of `5 lacs with the Tarun Kranti Manch Trust (Regd.), Defence Colony, Delhi (a Trust created by late Jain Muni Tarun Sagar) and will also deposit a costs of 5 lacs with the Poor Patient’s Fund (Prabh Aasra) in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh. The petitioner – Vishal Dadlani will deposit the costs of 5 lacs with the Shri Digamber Jain Mandir Trust, Sector 27, Chandigarh and 5 lacs with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.” [Vishal Dadlani v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 446, decided on 29-04-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

Under the Code, Participants have voluntarily undertaken to establish a high priority communication channel with the nodal officers designated by ECI. Participants including BIGO, ByteDance, Facebook, Google, Sharechat and Twitter have also agreed to take action on content reported by the nodal officer, expeditiously, in accordance with the law.

The Chief Election Commissioner in his remarks appreciated the proactive steps taken by the Association and its members [participants] to ensure transparency in regards to paid political advertisement by maintaining a repository of political advertisement with information such as the sponsor, expenditure and targeted reach of such content in an aggregated manner. Participants have built the technology to upload MCMC certification. Participants have also committed to taking action on paid advertisements violating MCMC certification requirement under notification by the ECI.

IAMAI will act as the liaison between the Participants and the ECI. Collectively, IAMAI and the member Participants of the Code of Ethics remain committed to ensuring free, fair, and ethical electoral process.