Frivolous, Demeaning: Gujarat High Court Slams Applicant, Lawyer For Making Unwarranted Remarks Against Judges In Contempt Plea

Terming a contempt plea seeking action against Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India and others as well as their advocates "disingenuous" and an "epitome of frivolity", Gujarat High Court expressed its displeasure with the applicant Gujarat Operational Creditors Association and its counsel Deepak Khosla for moving the plea and for making "unwarranted remarks" on the judges of the court. In doing so a division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi in its order also imposed a cost of Rs 2 Lakh on the applicant to be paid in two weeks and said, "Thus, indubitably, this application is absolutely ill conceived, frivolous and is filed with an ill-motive to demean the learned Single Judges and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents, hence it deserves to be rejected by imposing exemplary costs". It further observed that the plea, which alleged contempt on the part of the respondents and its advocates for seeking extension of an ad interim stay, was a "sheer wastage of judicial time".The court further observed that tenor of the application and the submissions advanced do not even remotely connect with the law of contempt so far it concerns, the respondents and the advocates appearing for them. On the contrary, the filing of "preposterous application and making unwarranted remarks on the learned Single Judges is contumacious conduct by the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Khosla", the court said."It is apparent that, this application has been filed for vested interest. Though, the applicant has an alternative remedy, the present application is filed by creating a peerless cause. In fact, by contending that the request made by the learned senior counsels and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents in seeking extension of adinterim order is contemptuous, an attempt has been made to cast aspersion on the learned Single Judges of this Court in extending the ad-interim order. Learned advocate Mr.Khosla appears to be ignorant on the law of contempt or rather it appears that a deliberate attempt has been made to demean the functioning of this Court by filing this application by conflating two entirely different issues, though an alternative approach is available. The respondents along with their learned advocates are tried to be roped in for committing contempt only for the sole reason of requesting the learned Single Judges to extend the ad-interim relief, and ad hominem attacks are made on the learned Single Judges, who have extended the interim relief," the court said.The bench further "condemned" the use and reliance of the transcripts of the live video streaming of the matter by the applicant–which it said was of 259 pages–and referred to Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021 to observe that the same was not permitted. The court observed the Rule 5(e), (f) and (g) of the Rules, do not permit the same as part of Court record nor allow the live streamed videos of the court proceedings as evidence of anything and will also not be considered admissible. Rule 5(i) of the Rules mandates that 'no content of the live streamed feed/videos or any observations made therein, will be treated as authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the Court proceedings. It thus said, "Thus, the Rules prohibits any content of the live streamed videos to be used as authorized/certified/official version of “anything” relating to the Court proceedings. It is contended by the learned advocate that the production of transcripts of the court proceedings cannot violate any of the rules, and the same can be placed reliance by the parties. However, we do not subscribe to the said submission...The Rules prohibit “content” and “observation made in the videos”. The transcripts are derivative from the videos of court proceedings, and they will fall within the ambit of “contents” and “observation". Thus, the use of transcription of live streaming court proceedings cannot be treated as authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the Court proceedings and the same cannot be allowed to be treated as evidence of anything relating to the Court proceedings and will also be inadmissible, and violation of the mandate of Rules will invite proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, formulation of the transcripts by the applicant from the live streamed videos runs contrary to the mandate of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, and hence, reliance placed on the unauthorized transcripts by learned advocate Mr.Khosla needs to be deprecated and highly condemned, which we do". The court was also of the opinion that videos of court proceedings should be removed from YouTube after a specific period, however it left it to the discretion Chief Justice, asking the Registry to apprise Chief Justice in this regard.An interim order was passed by the Single Judge on August 8, 2024 in a writ petition which had been moved...

Frivolous, Demeaning: Gujarat High Court Slams Applicant, Lawyer For Making Unwarranted Remarks Against Judges In Contempt Plea

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags