New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that its shoulders are broad enough to bear any blame or criticism through social media platforms under the guise of right to freedom of speech and expression, but parties before the court cannot distort the facts on social media regarding pending cases.
A bench comprising justices Anirudhha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said it is very usual that the Judges do react during the course of arguments being made by the lawyers, sometimes in favour of and sometimes against a party to the proceeding. “However, that does not give any right or leeway to either of the parties or their lawyers to the proceedings to post comments or messages on the social media distorting the facts or not disclosing the correct facts of the proceedings”, said the bench, in an order passed on April 8.
The apex court made these observations while initiating contempt action against Assam legislator Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, in relation to a misleading Facebook post in connection with a case reserved for judgment.
The bench expressed its discontent on comments or posts published regarding pending matters, through social media platforms under the guise of right to freedom of speech and expression. “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, deserves serious consideration”, said the bench.
The bench noted that senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the petitioner, contended that by publishing such a post on social media like Facebook, the alleged contemnor had attempted to interfere with the proceedings pending before this court. “When the matter was reserved for judgment, the alleged contemnor could not have published such a post on his Facebook account, and this was a clear attempt to interfere with the court’s proceedings and administration of justice”, it was argued before the court.
Finding prima facie substance in Gupta’s submission, the bench said it is seriously concerned 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 apex court initiated contempt proceedings against Sonai MLA Barbhuiya for his March 20 Facebook post. Aminul Haque Laskar, who moved the court through Adeel Ahmed, said that it had come to his notice that Karim, the alleged contemnor, has published a post on his Facebook account on March 20, 2024, to the effect that “the Supreme Court has ruled in his favour and that the allegations brought against him to defame him have fallen flat. He has been right this whole time, and it’s those who brought allegations against him, have been proved as liars”.
The apex court issued notice to Karim under the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975. “A copy of this order be furnished to the Attorney General for India also. Notice be made returnable after four weeks. Let the alleged contemnor remain present on the returnable date. Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, if required to do so for listing before the appropriate Bench”, said the apex court.
On April 8, in a relief to All India United Democratic (AIUDF) leader and Assam MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya, in a separate case, the apex court dismissed the election petition filed by Aminul Haque Laskar and others challenging Barbhuiya's 2021 Assembly election from the Sonai legislative assembly constituency in Assam.
