Supreme Court flags concern over misuse of social media in commenting on pending cases

The Supreme Court recently voiced concern that social media was being widely misused to make comments that distort facts on cases pending before the Court [Aminul Haque Laskar vs Karim Uddin Barbhuiya and ors]..A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose (since retired) and Bela M Trivedi said that while the Court's shoulders were broad enough to deal with criticism, it would not tolerate the distortion of facts through social media comments. ."It is a matter of serious concern 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. 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," the Court said. .The Court made the observation while asking All India United Democratic (AIUDF) leader and Assam MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya to respond to a contempt case filed against him by Aminul Haque Laskar, who is now part of the Indian National Congress (INC).Laskar told the Court that the AIUDF leader had uploaded a post on March 20 on Facebook claiming that he (Barbhuiya) had won a case, at a stage when the top court had only reserved its judgment in the matter.Barbhuiya did eventually get a favourable ruling on April 8. However, the Court took a serious view of the AIUDF leader's premature claims on social media that he had won the case. "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," the Court said. .Such conduct needs to be taken up extremely seriously when parties attempt to interfere with pending proceedings and prejudice the administration of justice, the Court emphasised.A copy of the instant order was also directed to be sent to the Attorney General of India. The contempt of court case will be taken up next after four weeks..The main dispute between Barbhuiya and Laskar is rooted in the 2021 election of Barbhuiya from the Sonai Legislative Assembly constituency. Laskar, then part of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had lost to him in that election.Later, based on information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), Laskar filed an election petition challenging Barbhuiya's election.The plea alleged discrepancies in the educational qualifications stated in the AIUDF leader's election affidavit.Barbhuiya was said to have submitted in an election affidavit that he graduated from the Choudhury Charan Singh University in Meerut in 2019. However, the State education board stated that there was no record of him having passed the class 12 examination. The Election Commission still let him contest the polls. Laskar later moved the High Court with an election petition challenging the move. On April 26 last year, the Gauhati High Court rejected an application by Barbhuiya to dismiss Laskar's election petition, prompting the AIUDF leader to approach the top court for relief. The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter in May 2023, while staying the High Court proceedings. On April 8 this year, it eventually ruled in Barbhuiya's favour, on finding that the allegations against him were bald and vague..However, Laskar then drew the Court's attention to the Facebook post made by Barbhuiya even before the judgment was pronounced.In the said March 20 post, the AIUDF leader is reported to have prematurely claimed that the Supreme Court had ruled in his favour. The said post added that all attempts to defame him (Barbhuiya) had "fallen flat" and that he was right all along, the Court was told. .Taking exception to such conduct, the Supreme Court opined that Barbhuiya appears to have attempted to interfere with pending case proceedings and the administration of justice.It, therefore, issued notice in Laskar's contempt plea against the AIUDF leader and posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks. .Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta and Dileep Majumdar with advocates Adeel Ahmed, Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Raja Chatterjee, Racheet Chawla, Sana Parveen, Piyush Sachdev, Anupama Gupta, Riya Dutta, and Supratik appeared for Aminul Haque Laskar.Senior Advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy with advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Mustafa Khaddam Hussain, and Ibad Mushtaq appeared for Karim Uddin Barbhuiya..[Read order]