"Not a boxing ring but a courtroom:" Karnataka High Court expresses displeasure on media reportage of hearing in Twitter's Manish Maheshwari case

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday took strong exception to the way in which media houses had reported yesterday's hearing in a plea filed by Manish Maheshwari, an employee of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd challenging notice issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC]. .Single-judge Justice G Narendar took specific exception to the use of the word "lambasted" by some media outlets after it was informed that certain news reports mentioned that the Court had "lambasted the Uttar Pradesh police" over their insistence of seeking the appearance of Manish Maheshwari"I want to express my unhappiness with how the media reports have come out," the judge told the lawyers involved in the case. .The Court said that there was no question of 'lambasting' or 'blasting' in court as it is not a boxing ring."This is not a boxing ring. This is a court room. Be assured this is not a boxing ring or Akhada. There is no question of blasting or lambasting. This kind of reporting is not appreciative.".The Court further said there would be severe repercussions if proceedings of the Court are not reported correctly. "This is a word of caution, any use of language which is not correct will not be taken lightly. If you want to reproduce what transpires in Court, it should be fair and correct. I am putting people to notice."The Court further clarified that "opinionated reporting" of Court proceedings will not be allowed. .Yesterday, the High Court had quizzed the Uttar Pradesh Police on whether Twitter India has power to take down content transmitted through the social media platform or whether the same is reserved with parent company, Twitter Inc, which is based out of the United States..During the hearing today, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh submitted that merely because the crime was registered in Uttar Pradesh, does not mean that a part of the cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Nagesh also referred to a number of Supreme Court decisions to buttress his case. The matter was then adjourned to July 8. .Maheshwari has moved the High Court challenging the notice issued to him under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).This was pursuant to an FIR registered against Twitter and others in the backdrop of a video wherein an elderly Muslim man was asked to shave his beard and was forced to chant "Vande Mataram" and "Jai Shri Ram".The Uttar Pradesh Police had ruled out any "communal angle" and said that Sufi Abdul Samad, the elderly man, was attacked by six men who were unhappy over the tabeez (amulets) he had sold them..The FIR stated that the accused circulated a video of the incident on their Twitter handles without checking its authenticity, and that they gave the video a communal angle and intended to incite communal hatred between religious communities.Maheshwari was issued a notice under Section 41A and directed by the UP Police to appear before Loni Border Police Station as part of the investigation into the Ghaziabad video issue.He then moved the Karnataka High Court which had granted him interim protection.