Social media cannot be used to scandalize the judiciary, Delhi HC in S Gurumurthy contempt case

Social media cannot be used to scandalize the judiciary, the Delhi High Court today observed while hearing the contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) against Chartered Accountant and Economic Analyst, S Gurumurthy..The matter was listed for hearing before a Division Bench led by Justice Siddharth Mridul..The hearing began with the counsel appearing for Gurumurthy, seeking some accommodation to file a reply to the rejoinder submitted by the DHCBA..The request was turned down by the Bench, which stated that there can be no reply to a rejoinder, and asked the counsel Ravi Sharma, to proceed with his defence..Sharma argued that Gurumurthy was an eminent journalist and the tweet in question was merely a question..He also raised an objection on the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the contempt petition in terms of Section 15(3)(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Sharma contended that a contempt case can be initiated by the Court itself or at the behest of an officer/standing counsel “notified” in terms of the Act. The present petition, being filed by the DHCBA, was hence not maintainable..Stating that nobody is exempt from contempt, the Court rejected the arguments by declaring that it is “not powerless to rule out hypertechnical questions“..Gurumurthy’s lawyer then went on to seek an adjournment on the ground that Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani could not be present before the Court for some reason..“You know who is responsible for this docket explosion in pendency? This is really unfortunate. In a serious matter of contempt you are saying so-and-so isn’t here”, said a visibly miffed Justice Mridul..Further stating that the present case does not concern a specific judge but the judicial system, Justice Mridul observed,.“We are not supposed to defend ourselves on social media. Judges don’t defend themselves. Is this fair comment that you attribute motive to the judiciary? We are dismayed.”.He further iterated,.“Journalistic licence does not give you the right to make unsavoury allegations…We are all in for free Press but don’t attribute motive to us“, Justice Mridul said..Justice Mridul also expressed his displeasure over a 60-page rejoinder filed in the matter..“All this must stop. Just one page (is required). It’s a short question; whether what he said was contempt or not.”.The matter was adjourned with the observation that no further adjournments would be granted in it..DHCBA was represented by its President, Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal..The matter will be next heard on December 4..When a Division Bench led by Justice S Muralidhar earlier granted bail to Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media bribery case, Gurumurthy had tweeted asking if Muralidhar J had been a junior to Karti Chidambaram’s father and Senior Advocate P Chidambaram..The Bench of Justices Muralidhar and Mehta thereafter had taken suo motu cognizance of the tweets. The Court, however, did not initiate contempt proceedings against Gurumurthy but had asked the Centre as to whether such posts can scandalize the legal profession and whether any remedial action needed to be taken. Gurumurthy, on his part, had deleted the controversial tweets..The Delhi High Court also issued a suo motu contempt notice against Gurumurthy last month, after he had shared a tweet alluding to bias on the part of Justice Muralidhar after the judge had passed an order setting aside the transit remand order against activist Gautam Navlakha earlier this month..He had retweeted a link to a blog called ‘Drishtikone’, titled ‘Why has Delhi High Court Justice Muralidhar’s relationship with Gautam Navlakha not been disclosed?’