The Bombay High Court at Goa recently said that the provisions related to contempt of court should be used to protect the rights of people and not to protect the court from insult or injury. It should be used to ensure that the administration of justice continues without any interference, hamper or obstruction.
The Court stated, “The provisions of contempt of court should only be used delicately- not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of people so that administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed, or interfered with”.
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M.S. Sonak made these observations while refusing to take action and dismissing a contempt petition filed against YouTuber David Clever who uploads contemptuous videos against judicial officers on Social Media platforms like YouTube and WhatsApp. The bench stated that the judiciary has the ability to shrug of spurious allegations.
An individual named Kashinath Shetye had filed a contempt petition against David Clever, who probably resides in the UK, stating in the petition that Clever makes false and derogatory allegations against judicial officers of the District Judiciary and uploads the same on YouTube and WhatsApp. The petitioner said that he had also acquired the consent from the Advocate General, as required by law, before filing this contempt petition.
By going through the contents uploaded by Clever, the division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Sonak observed, “At least, prima facie, the content allegedly uploaded by Respondent No.1 (Clever) is quite contumacious and might, if established, constitute criminal contempt.”
However, the Bench pondered whether contempt proceedings should continue against Clever or “to proceed with confidence in judicial institutions and judicial officers who function to the best of their abilities without any fear or favor.”
The Divisional Bench observed, “According to us the shoulders of our institution are broad enough to shrug off such scurrilous allegations. The dignity and authority of our judicial institutions are neither dependent on the opinions allegedly expressed by Respondent No.1 (David Clever) nor can the dignity of our institution and its officers be tarnished by such stray slights or irresponsible content”.
The High Court administration made some enquiries and revealed that Clever’s comments were possibly a front by some dissatisfied litigants. The Bench stated, “Therefore to take this matter any further might only serve to feed the publicity craze of those that have uploaded this content to provoke rather than out of some concern to bring to fore some genuine grievance concerning the administration of justice in Goa.”
The judges added, “The Court has the duty to protect the interests of its community in the due administration of justice and, therefore, it is entrusted with the power to punish for its contempt. This power is to be only sparingly exercised, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and vindicate the right of the people so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed, or interfered with”.
They noted that the videos and remarks of the kind in question should be viewed as “with contempt” rather than as “in contempt”. “Such content, allegedly uploaded by respondent no.1, is best treated with contempt, rather than in contempt particularly since respondent no.1 (David Clever) has neither bothered to cite any specific instances nor bothered to lodge any complaints backed by even, prima facie, credible material” the bench said.
Stating an instance by Lord Denning, where the Judge refused to be provoked by the scathing article by a Lawyer, the judges quoted, “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. Our dignity must rest on surer foundations. All we would ask is that those who criticize us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into any public controversy. Still less into a political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.”
The Divisional Bench of the High Court even noted that the people had a vital stake in the free and effective administration of justice. “The Court has the responsibility of protecting this interest of the community that it has in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to punish for its contempt,” added the judges.