It must be stated right at the outset that the Chhattisgarh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled K vs S in Case No.: FA (MAT) No. 26 of 2021 that was pronounced just recently on April 2, 2024 has while taking the right step in the right direction ordered the Registrar General to take measures and if need be issue contempt notices against persons who reposted the morphed video of Court proceeding and also ordered the Registrar General to take measures and if need be issue contempt notices against persons who reposted the morphed video of Court proceeding and also against netizens who posted derogatory comments against the Judges and the Court. The Court expressed its strong displeasure over the derogatory comments that were being made by netizens against judges and lawyers with increasing public access to court proceedings through the live-streaming of cases. It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Hon’ble Mr Justice Radhakishan Agarwal while taking a critical note pointed out that judge-bashing appears to have become a favourite pastime for some. This definitely cannot be justified under any circumstances as it certainly tends to lower hugely the dignity and respect of judiciary that it commands in the minds of the people!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Radhakishan Agarwal and concurring judgment by Hon’ble Mr Justice Goutam Bhaduri of Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This appeal is by the husband under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1984’) read with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1890’) against the judgment dated 06.03.2021 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G. in Misc. Civil Suit No.24/2020, whereby the application filed by husband under Section 25 of the Act of 1890 has been dismissed.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while dwelling on the facts of the case that, “(i) Brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.2014, marriage of the appellant-husband was solemnized with the respondent-wife according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Vijaynagram, Andhra Pradesh and out of their wedlock, Ku. Dakshata was born on 21.03.2015. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent did not take care of her child and was always careless towards the child since birth. Upon consultation with psychiatrist, the appellant came to know that respondent is suffering from schizophrenia disease and thereafter she was taken to Citizen Hospital, Hyderabad where Dr. Anita Arya conducted her treatment for a long time. The respondent and her parents had left the child with the appellant for her proper care. Thus, the daughter has been living under the protection of the appellant since the age of one year. When the appellant filed a divorce petition against the respondent before the Family Court, Durg in which proceedings respondent appeared and prayed for time to file written statement. Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. before SDM, Durg and got a warrant issued against the appellant seeking presence of her daughter.
(ii) It is alleged that the respondent subjected the appellant to mental harassment by way of abusing and threatening him and also used to create nuisance and used to quarrel with him over petty matters and always wanted to take her daughter back from his custody for which she used to issue threats in that regard and being fed up with the persistent ill-treatment, he filed a complaint before the concerned police station. In such a situation, the future of the minor daughter is not safe and secure in the hands of respondent as under her guardianship there is likely to have an adverse effect on both physical and mental development of the child whereas the appellant is fully competent to look after his daughter by bringing her up and educating her as he is working as Accountant. Therefore, being a natural guardian, custody of child be given to him.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 40 that, “Therefore, following the principles laid down in the case of Yashita Sahu v State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 67 and in the case of Ritika Sharan v Sujoy Ghosh 2020 SCC OnLine SC 878, we hereby order to facilitate the grant of visitation and contact right to mother. The following arrangement shall be drawn by both the appellant and the respondent as father and mother:-
· The respondent-mother would be able to engage with the child on a suitable video conferencing platform for one hour every Saturday and Sunday and 5-10 minutes on other days.
· Both the respondent-mother and the appellant-father in order to facilitate the video conferencing in between shall procure smart phones which would facilitate the inter se video calling.
· Every month preferably on 2nd Saturday and 2nd Sunday and on a festival day, the father shall allow the child to visit her mother.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 41 that, “In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s).”
It would be extremely vital to note that the Division Bench points out in para 43 that, “Now coming back to the social media publications. After the case was reserved for judgment, an application was filed by the respondent for appropriate action for tampering the live streaming Court proceedings of the Court. Certain copies of social media messages were also annexed with application. Some of the derogatory comments are as under :
· I can hear cries in his voice… that lady deserves· special place in hell.
· Absolutely ridiculous decision. If the mother’s income is fair, she cannot ask for alimony.
· Be immensely careful of the woman you choose to marry & plan a family with. I would not wish this day even on my worst enemy.
· So basically one qualification to be a Judge is to be stupid and unrealistic?
· Don’t be surprised if this man and his mother is sent to jail for mental cruelty towards this woman.
· The judges are mostly men, why can’t they see pain of other man instead of being biased towards one Gender, let’s treat culprit be culprit and victims be victim.
· C ho kya judge
· I’d request my honourable and respected Judiciary System to put that man and his mother behind the bars for the harassment and mental agony caused to the wife. I hope the wife will get justice from this super intelligent Judge.
· Judge giving judgment after he got beaten by wife in morning.
· Maybe after sleeping with victim’s wife.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench then postulates in para 44 mincing just absolutely no words to hold unequivocally that, “It appears that “Judge bashing” and using derogatory and contemptuous language against the Judges and Lawyers has become a favourite pastime of some people. These statements tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Courts and cannot be permitted because, for functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount. While fair and temperate criticism of the Court even if strong, may not be actionable, but attributing improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice must be and will be taken.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Division Bench expounds in para 45 that, “The Supreme Court in the matter of R.C. Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1318 observed that those who err in their criticism by indulging in vilification of the institution of Court, administration of justice and the instruments through which the administration acts, should take heed for they will act at their own peril.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 48 that, “Judiciary is the bed rock and handmaid of democracy. If people lose faith in justice parted by a Court of law, the entire democratic set up would crumble down. In this background, observations of Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. v. Lennon (1968) 3 All ER 304 are relevant: “Justice must be rooted in confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking – the Judge is based.”
Finally and most remarkably, the Division Bench concludes by holding in para 51 that, “The nature of comments made do not aid to improve the justice delivery system. It indirectly extends threat to lawyers and tarnishes the image of the Courts and it is easy to pass a comment for a mint fresh attention on the fence without realizing the facts and to have a misplaced sense of collective pride. Therefore, considering the entire facts situation, we refer the matter to the Registrar General of this Court, who will in coordination with the Registrar (Computerization)/CPC, take appropriate measures in respect of scripts with flaws and if need be contempt notices be issued to the persons who posted the proceedings of the Court in the social media and who made the derogatory comments against the pleading Advocates, Court and the Judges, after identifying them with the help of Cyber Cell Team of the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to register appropriate proceedings separately and place it before this Court.”
In a nutshell, it is high time and definitely now one and all must strictly abide by what the Chhattisgarh High Court has held in this leading case so clearly, cogently and convincingly. There must be zero tolerance for Judge bashing and those who indulge in it in any manner must definitely be most strictly punished. No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi