Kerala High Court might summon ex-judicial officer for Facebook post about court

The Kerala High Court recently took exception to the Facebook post of a former judicial officer and asked the court registry to enforce personal appearance of the concerned officer if the post is found authentic [Ajith EV v. Commissioner of Police and Ors.]..The development came about during the hearing of the case regarding fake antiques scam in which notorious conman Monson Mavunkal is the prime accused. .The hearing today veered into the effects of social media after the Court was handed over a copy of a Facebook post in which a former judicial officer, one S Sudeep, had made derisive comments against it for the manner in which the case had been handled by the Court.This prompted Justice Devan Ramachandran to bemoan the fact that even though social media is a useful and powerful tool which can be used for good, the actions of a few loose-tongued individuals tarnishes its image."Social media is being used for very well by many people. It is good as a whole, just a few individuals act like this who think they can write and say anything. Because of such people, we complain about social media in general.It is very powerful. People world over contribute and crores of rupees are collected for the treatment of children (with rare diseases)," the judge remarked orally..The Facebook post in question was brought to the notice of the Court by advocate Mohammed Shah, a lawyer practicing before the Court and a member of the Bar Council.The Court decided to not ignore the disparaging post as it opined that it suggested some links between the former judicial officer and Monson Mavunkal and amounted to an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice.However, it directed the registry to assess the veracity of the post and if found to be authentic, immediately issue notice to enforce personal appearance."He seems to be harbouring certain notions about the manner in which this court has to act and the limits of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since he was a judicial officer, certainly, I would like to hear him so that he can inform me where this court has been going wrong according to him," the Court said in its orderWhen the Director General of prosecution referred to social media as "anti-social media", the Court reiterated its support of social media as a whole and lamented over the increasing number of cases that are filed to restrain individuals on social media."Anything which has a lot of power will have to dealt with responsibly. Unfortunately, there are few individuals who don't understand this responsibility and use social media just to denigrate and malign others. It's a perverse pleasure for them, what can we do. Because of them, all of social media gets a bad name. Even writs and proceedings are moved to restrain individuals on social media. I am not in favour, I believe in free thought, but with self restraint," Justice Ramachandran orally observed..This is not the first time that the former Perumbavoor Sub-judge, S Sudeep has been in hot water for his controversial social media posts.He had faced disciplinary enquiry by the High Court for publicly criticising judgments of the Kerala High Court, including one rendered by Justice Ramachnadran. He also publicly questioned the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala Case.In July this year, he tendered his resignation to Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, S Manikumar and announced the same via Facebook. .The order came on a petition filed by one Ajith EV seeking police protection as he was engaged as Mavunkal's driver and later allegedly provided information to the authorities against his employer.The nature of the petitioner's allegations grew darker with claims of threats and intimidation from police officers who were supposedly involved with Mavunkal.During the previous hearing, a doctor who had examined a survivor of sexual assault allegedly at the hands of Mavunkal also moved the Court seeking police protection as she had been receiving threats from Mavunkal and his associates.At the hearing today, however, the Court was informed that the survivor has complained against the doctor and that a crime has been registered on its basis. The petitioner doctor sought quashing of the investigation against her, which the Court duly declined. However, she was granted police protection as prayed for. .In October, some pictures had surfaced in the media that showed that Monson Mavunkal had connections with top police officials in the State, including former Kerala Police Chief, Director General of Police (DGP) Loknaath Behera and current Additional DGP Manoj Abraham as well.Earlier in November, the government had given its nod to suspend G Lakshman, Inspector-General (Traffic and Social Policing) for his purported connections with Mavunkal..The Court has consistently taken a very serious view of the matter, which seemed to involve not just top police officials but also an expat organisation, and had previously directed the State Police Chief to file reports on the investigation and allowed the Enforcement Directorate to be impleaded into the party array..At the last hearing, the Court heavily rebuked the State Police Chief for filing an application which the Court said, was filled with "veiled accusations and threats" against the Court. .The Court was informed today that the Crime Branch is thoroughly investigating the case. While counsel for the Enforcement Directorate sought more time to file a counter affidavit, the Court instructed them to work in tandem with the crime branch. .The matter will be taken up next on December 23..[Read Order]