Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held an individual guilty of uploading a video defaming judges. Court observed that the video contained derogatory and scandalous remarks, thus undermining the authority and dignity of the judiciary.

“The video posted by him in social media shows that the respondent has made contemptuous allegations against the Judges of this court and has thereby lowered the dignity of the justice delivery system. Accordingly, we hereby hold him guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”, the bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain held. 

The case originated from a contempt petition filed by the petitioners, who sought sanctions against the respondent for scandalizing the authority of the court and interfering with the administration of justice. The respondent had uploaded a video purporting to reveal the ‘true fate’ of the courts to the ‘Janta ki Adaalat’, thereby defaming the Judges.

This case was linked to a property dispute involving 2 bighas of land in Village Chilla Saroda Bangar (currently known as New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi). The respondent posted a video on social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, condemning the court's orders and making allegations against the judges.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Gagan Gandhi, asserted that the respondent's video willfully interfered with the court’s proceedings, obstructed the administration of justice, and scandalized and lowered the authority of the court. The video specifically defamed the judges and claimed to expose the 'true fate' of the courts to the 'Janta ki Adaalat'. Consequently, the petitioner requested criminal contempt action against the respondent.

The respondent, represented by Advocate Kunal Khanna, contended that he did not intend to defame or scandalize the court or its Judges and offered an unconditional apology.

The court found that the respondent had evidently lowered the dignity of the court. The court also noted that the respondent accused it of passing illegal orders without considering available documents and alleged that the Judges had predetermined their decisions. 

Court noted the respondent’s claims that his wife’s writ petition against the DDA was unfairly dismissed, alleging bias and improper conduct by the Judges. Furthermore, he suggested collusion between the court and the DDA, resulting in unjust judgments against the public. The respondent questioned the integrity of the judicial process, accusing the judges of destroying public property and family lives for the benefit of the DDA, it added. 

Court listed the matter for July 19, 2024 for arguments on sentence.

Case Title: Sudha Prasad v Uday Pal Singh