Contempt of court power must be used to protect rights: Bombay HC – Hindustan Times

The power of contempt of court is to be used not to ‘protect the dignity of the court’ but “to protect and vindicate the right of the people so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed, or interfered with” a bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa led by Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Dipankar Datta has said.

Disposing of a contempt petition filed by Kashinath Shetye, a public spirited person, who had hauled one David Cleaver, a British citizen before the court alleging that he was uploading videos on YouTube making ‘scurrilous’ allegations against the lower judiciary, the High Court ruled that “such content is best treated with contempt, rather than in contempt.”

“In such matters, we remind ourselves that it is the people that have a vital stake in the free and effective administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting this interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, 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,” the bench of the Chief Justice and Justice M S Sonak, said.

“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 nor can the dignity of our institution and its officers be tarnished by such stray slights or irresponsible content. Such content, allegedly uploaded by respondent no.1 (David Cleaver) is best treated with contempt, rather than in contempt particularly (he) has neither bothered to cite any specific instances nor bothered to lodge any complaints backed by even, prima facie, credible material,” the High Court said.

The High Court said that after inquiries, comments were revealed to be ‘irresponsible’ and were possibly used by “some disgruntled litigants.”

“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 High Court said.

Shetye, who appeared in person had alleged that Cleaver by making false and scurrilous allegations against some judicial officers of the District Judiciary and uploading this content on Youtube and Whatsapp has committed criminal contempt. He also received consent from the Advocate General before filing the petition.

The Court agreed that the content “prima facie’’ is quite contumacious and might, if established, constitute criminal contempt. But said it preferred not to proceed with the matter since it was “better to proceed with confidence in our institutions and our judicial officers who function to the best of their abilities without fear or favor.”