New Delhi: Comments and remarks posted on matters pending in court that undermine the judiciary need to be taken seriously, the Supreme Court observed this week while issuing a contempt notice to a legislator from Assam.
Sonai MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya faces contempt for uploading a misleading post about his case pending in the Supreme Court. Put out on 20 March, Barbhuiya’s Facebook post announced that the apex court had ruled in his favour while rejecting a petition that challenged his 2021 election on the ground of corrupt practice.
This was contrary to the record as the top court had simply reserved its judgement on the matter, although the verdict pronounced later dismissed the petition against him.
The contempt case against the AIUDF legislator was filed by his rival candidate, Aminul Haque Laskar, whose petition was rejected by the Supreme Court. Laskar’s advocate claimed that by publishing a post on his social media, Barbhuiya had interfered with the court proceedings.
The bench prima facie found substance in the submission made before it and at the same time rued the growing “tendency” to undermine the court’s authority through the misuse of social media platforms.
The judges felt the matter was required to be taken seriously when an attempt was made to cause prejudice to proceedings or interfere with the course of administration of justice.
“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,” the court remarked.
It conceded the court’s shoulders should be “broad enough” to face criticism, but the same did not give right to commentators to distort facts about a pending matter in the garb of “right to freedom of speech and expression”.
Such an attempt, having the tendency to undermine the court’s authority or interfere with the course of justice, should be seriously looked into, the judges said.
“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 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, deserve serious consideration,” they said.
Open court arguments, inviting the judges to make comments during hearing, can sway either way, sometimes in favour of the one party and sometimes the other. However, that does not give “any right or leeway” to either of the parties or their lawyers to post comments or messages on social media, distorting the facts or not disclosing the correct facts of the proceedings, the court said.
“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,” observed the judges.
Pointing to Barbhuiya’s fault, the bench said he should “not have published such a post on his Facebook account”, and termed the act a “clear attempt to interfere with the court’s proceedings”.
It directed him to make a personal appearance in the court after four weeks and also ordered that a copy of the order be furnished to the Attorney General of India for his assistance.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: Delhi Metro vs Anil Ambani firm — why SC overruled its own judgment citing ‘miscarriage of justice