Stressing that Courts should focus on 'substantive justice', the Delhi High Court observed that in-camera proceedings can be allowed to be held in appropriate cases under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The single-judge bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that it is incumbent upon the judiciary to not only see that justice is done but also to ensure that justice is also seen to be done.
The Court thus emphasised that Section 151 CPC can be extended to allowing in-camera proceedings wherever deemed neccessary in the interests of justice.
"In any case, procedures are handmaids to the ends of justice and they can only supplement but not supplant the interests of justice. Therefore, merely because there is no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed."
It cited Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra & ANR, 1966 Latest Caselaw 64 SC wherein the Supreme Court mentioned slew of statutory provisions including Sec-51 CPC deliberating how the power of the court to hold certain trials in camera, either fully or partially, is inevitably associated with the administration of justice itself.
Therefore, in appropriate cases, this Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for carrying out the proceedings in camera if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case, it stated.
The plaintiff, a Bollywood movie producer, had approached the Court seeking injunction and damages against defendant for continuously using abusive language against the plaintiff and her family members and even calling upon her followers to rape the plaintiff and her daughters.
The defendant was accused of hurling abuses, threats and incitement against the plaintiff through live sessions as well as through recorded videos. It was submitted that the plaintiff is a victim of hate crime due to her success as a well-known celebrity and as a Producer in the Bollywood film industry.
The Court was apprised that plaintiff had issued Legal Notice upon the defendant to cease and desist from the malicious acts being perpetrated against her and her family. It was stated that after receiving the said notice, the defendant stepped up her hate speech against the plaintiff and her family.
The instant application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed seeking two reliefs.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff due to the harassment and cyberbullying by the defendant on using various social media platforms. It was submitted that the balance of convenience is in the favor of the plaintiff and that she would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if the injunction is not granted in her favor. It was, accordingly, prayed that an ex-parte and ad-interim injunction be granted against the defendant and directions be passed to restrain the defendant from accessing her social media platforms, namely, Instagram and YouTube, for posting hateful content against the plaintiff.
The Court granted ad-interim ex-parte injunction.
CASE TITLE: TARU PURI vs
CASE DETAILS: CS(OS) 91/2023
CORAM: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
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