Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that it is important to put a quietus to the contempt proceedings initiated against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue S Gurumurthy in 2018 for his tweet on Justice S Muralidhar for the judgement in INX Media case. 

Court noted that Gurumurthy has already appeared in the matter and expressed his remorse. 

"Our view is that this gentleman (S. Gurumurthy) against whom you're alleging contempt has appeared before the court, he has expressed his remorse. Sometimes it is important to put a quietus to all this", said the division bench of Justice Sidharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth.

The court was dealing a contempt plea filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) seeking criminal contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy over his tweet wherein he questioned whether Justice S Muralidhar was Senior Advocate P Chidambaram’s junior. 

The tweet was posted following the decision of a division bench led by Justice Muralidhar to award temporary protection to Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media case. 

During the hearing today, Advocate Aman Bhalla appearing as proxy counsel for the DHCBA sought one week's accommodation for his senior who was not available to argue the matter today.

The division bench told Advocate Aman Bhalla, "This contempt has been pending since 2018. We have been patient with you. Our view is that this gentleman (S. Gurumurthy) against whom you're alleging contempt has appeared before the court, he has expressed his remorse. Sometimes it is important to put a quietus to all this".

"We don't understand why DHCBA is so keen because, we'll tell you, the bench itself heard the matter in relation to whether there was any intent and said that they would not...we must sooner or later put a quietus to it", Justice Mridul remarked. "You can't have a sword of Damocles' hanging over somebody's head for so many years", he added.

Accordingly, the court posted the matter for hearing on July 13. The bench also asked the counsel for DHCBA to ask the association's secretary whether he is keen to follow this criminal proceeding or not.

Notably, in April, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, on behalf of Gurumurthy had stated that he will not file another affidavit offering an “unconditional apology” for his tweet because he had already filed his response in 2018. Jethmalani stated that Gurumurthy had deleted that contentious tweet right after he came to know about the factual error.

“I am sorry, but this is not an apology. It is just a reply on merits of the contempt claim. File a two-line apology and put a quietus to this. Say it on affidavit and the matter ends,” Justice Talwant Singh had then remarked orally. However, the senior counsel had reiterated that the bench may proceed to hear the case on merits. 

In related news, the division bench earlier in April this year 'discharged' Indian Film Director Vivek Agnihotri in the suo-motu criminal contempt case initiated against him in connection with relief provided by Justice S. Muralidhar to UAPA-accused Gautam Navlakha.

The matter pertains to the tweets allegedly made in support of an article written by S Gurumurthy against the judgment setting aside the transit remand order against Bhima Koregaon Violence accused Gautam Navlakha in 2018.

It is to be noted that on October 29, 2018, the high court issued criminal contempt notice against Gurumurthy and others for tweeting the article alleging that Justice S Muralidhar was biased in passing the order releasing Gautam Navlakha from house arrest.

The high court had issued the notice after receiving a letter from Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao alleging contempt. The article tweeted by Gurumurthy was titled, "Why has Delhi High Court Justice Muralidhar's relationship with Gautam Navlakha not been disclosed?" However, on October 14, 2019, the Delhi High Court removed Gurumurthy from the list of respondents in the matter after he issued an apology.

Case Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association through its Secretary v. S. Gurumurthy