A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana put an end to a Contempt Petition filed by a Rajasthan Civil Judge, Garima Sauda, against a practising Advocate, Goverdhan Singh, and ordered that merely pointing out that a particular proceeding has lingered on before the Court for an unduly long period of time, cannot be seen as contemptuous.
The Background of the Court
The contempt proceedings arose out of the petition filed by the judicial officer urging that contempt action be taken against the present respondent, who is a practising advocate. The case of the judicial officer is that, in relation to a criminal case that was pending before her, respondent No. 1 had made a highly objectionable comment on his Facebook page. It was stated in the plea that people responded to this comment, which responses were also objectionable and contemptuous.
Observation of the Court
The Division bench perused the Facebook post of the respondent and heard from Shri Sandeep Shah, Additional Advocate General, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, and the respondent, who appeared in person.
The Facebook post in question referred to various dates on which the criminal case was posted from time to time. Thereafter, the author of the post, i.e., respondent no. 1 herein, stated that after several dates, no justice was being done. Whether the complaint had to be registered as F.I.R. or not, was all that was required to be decided. Thereafter, he made the following remarks,
"I had asked for justice and got only unlimited adjournments."
In the opinion of the court, the actions of the respondent do not amount to contempt of court in any manner. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines criminal contempt as "the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice."
The remarks of the respondent were in the nature of stating that particular proceedings had lingered on before the Court for an unduly long period of time. That by itself, in isolation, cannot be seen as contemptuous.
After terminating the contempt proceedings due to the non-availability of any contemptuous circumstances. At last, the Court ordered,
"The reference to the remarks of several other people in response to this post, which may be highly objectionable, would not turn the action of the present respondent contemptuous unless a specific design or plan is shown to be in existence."
Case Details
Case title: Smt. Garima Sauda v. Goverdhan Singh and others
Bench: Chief Justice Mr. Akil Kureshi and Justice Rekha Borana
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments