1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates Association of Western India have filed this Contempt Petition for inviting attention of the Court to the alleged acts of the first to fourteenth Respondents of scandalising and insulting the sitting Judges of this Court and for seeking action against them for committing criminal contempt. The Petitioners have invited our attention to videos available on You Tube(11th Respondent) containing utterances of some of the Respondents and videos of the proceedings in the Court of a sitting Judge of this Court.
2. The first Respondent appears in person and raises preliminary objections. However, the first Respondent is not entitled to be heard unless a notice is issued to him.
3. As far as the first Respondent is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the petitioners have already relied upon his contemptuous conduct as seen from various orders of this Court as as well as utterances in the interview in the videos available on ‘You Tube’. He states that Compact Disk containing said interview is already on record which is marked as Exhibit B-1. He has produced for perusal of the Court a snapshot of the video of the interview of the first Respondent which is available on You Tube’ (the 11 Respondent). He states that transcript of the interview will be furnished to the Court.
4. Our attention is invited to the communication dated 16 February, 2017 issued by the learned Advocate General by which he has granted consent under clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating proceedings for criminal contempt against first to tenth Respondents in this Petition.
5. We have perused the transcripts of the conversation in the videos which are allegedly published and uploaded by the second Respondent on ‘You Tube’. The Transcripts have been annexed to this Petition as Exhibits. A Compact Disk containing the videos downloaded from ‘You Tube’ is marked as Exhibit ‘B-1’ to the Petition. On pages 26 and 27, there is a table which sets out the details of the videos and corresponding URL. We have carefully perused the transcripts. The third Respondent appears to have acted as an anchor. His utterances are recorded in the transcripts at Exhibits ‘B-2’ and “B-3”. He has repeatedly alleged that a sitting Judge of this Court, who is named by him, is indulging in corruption. These allegations are ex-facie contemptuous.
6. It appears from the record that the fourth Respondent has taken a video film of the proceedings before the same learned Judge of this Court, which is referred as a “sting operation”. The said recording is a part of at least two videos which are uploaded on ‘You Tube’ by the second Respondent jointly with India Bureau Ojha NGO. Once, his cell phone was confiscated as he was found recording the Court proceedings. In his interview (Exhibit B-12), he has accepted that he has recorded a video of the Court proceedings. He has made scandalous allegations against the Judges of this Court.
7. As far as the alleged utterances of the Respondent No. 6 are concerned, the transcript of his utterances on the offending videos is not annexed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that transcript will be provided to the Court.
8. As far as seventh Respondent is concerned, the transcript of his interview is marked as Exhibit ‘B-6’. We have carefully perused the said transcript. He has also made similar scandalous allegations against the same learned Judge against whom the third Respondent has made allegations. As far as the eighth Respondent is concerned, the transcript of his interview is on page 109 (Exhibit B-8). We have carefully perused the said transcript. The third Respondent asked him about the allegations of corruption on the part of the same learned Judge of this Court. He has responded by supporting the version of the third Respondent about the Judge indulging in corruption.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that transcripts of the interviews/utterances of the sixth, ninth and tenth Respondents have not been annexed. He stated that the same will be annexed. However, they are part of the Compact Disk which is at Exhibit ‘B-1’.
10. After having perused the utterances of the third, fourth, seventh and eight Respondents recorded in the transcripts, we are of the view that the said utterances tend to scandalize the Authority of this Court and in particular the Judges of this Court. The act of publishing the videos is intended to scandalize this Court by making scandalous and defamatory allegations against a learned Judge of this Court. It also tends to lower the Authority of the Court. Such allegations also interfere with due course of judicial proceedings. The manner in which the utterances are made and the videos are uploaded on ‘You Tube’ certainly amounts to causing obstruction in the administration of justice. Moreover, the fourth respondent has taken videos of the Court proceedings without the permission of the Court.
11. As far as the second and fifth Respondents are concerned, as of today, we are not sure whether the said Respondents are legal entities against whom an action for the Contempt of Courts can be initiated.
12. Now, coming to the the eleventh to fourteenth Respondents, we find that the learned Advocate General has not granted consent. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners prays for invoking suo motu power of this Court of taking action against the said Respondents for commission of criminal contempt. It is alleged that the said Respondents are operators and/or the owners of the website www.Youtube.com. If the said allegation is correct, the said Respondents are responsible for posting/uploading the videos containing scandalous material on You Tube. They have no right to do so. Before we consider the said prayer, we propose to issue a show cause notice to the said Respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why suo motu action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing criminal contempt could not be initiated against them.
13. Considering the scandalous and contemptuous nature of the offending videos of which transcripts have been filed on record, we are inclined to issue interim order directing the concerned Respondents to forthwith remove the offending videos. We are satisfied that a case is made out for grant of ad-interim relief in terms of Sub-Clauses (i) and (iv) of prayer Clause (e). Grant of said prayers will ensure that such videos which tend to scandalize this Court and the administration of justice in general are not uploaded on ‘You Tube’.
14. As regards transcripts of first, sixth, ninth and tenth Respondents, we permit the Petitioners to amend the Petition for incorporating additional averments and annexing the transcripts. Amendment to be carried out within a period of three days from today. The case alleged against the aforesaid Respondents will be considered after the amendment is carried out.
15. We are, satisfied that the utterances and acts of third, fourth, seventh and eighth Respondents, prima facie constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We, accordingly, direct the Registry to issue notice to the said Respondents under Rule 9(1) read with Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 returnable on 24 March, 2017.
16. Issue show cause notice to eleventh to fourteenth Respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for committing criminal contempt should not be initiated against them. Even the show cause notice to the said Respondents will be returnable on the same date.
17. For examining the case as against first, sixth, ninth and tenth Respondents, the Petition shall be listed under the caption of “Directions” on 22nd February, 2017.
18. There will be ad-interim relief in terms of Sub-clauses (1) and (iv) of prayer clause (e) against the third, fourth, seventh and eighth as well as the eleventh to fourteenth Respondents. Prayer clause (e) reads thus:—
“(e) That, pending the hearing and final disposal of the Contempt Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate Orders and Directions directing the Respondents to purge themselves of the contempt by (i) forthwith removing from the website www.youtube.com and from the internet at large the offending videos (at Exhibit “B-1”/”B-2” and “B-3” to “B-10”) and the write-up extracted at paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 hereof; (ii) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Respondents, particularly Respondents No. 1 to 10 to disclose on oath the details of any other scandalous and contumacious videos/clippings/recordings in respect of court matters and court proceedings and submit the same to the Court; (iii) by delivering up all records, originals and copies of the offending video and write-up for destruction under the Orders of this Hon'ble Court; and (iv) forthwith ceasing and desisting, whether by themselves or through their servants/employees/officers/agents/departments, from re-creating, re-uploading, re-publishing and/or in any way, shape or form disseminating the same or similar video and write up, as contained respectively at Exhibits “B-1”/“B-2” and “B-3” to “B-10” and in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 hereof; and (v) direct Respondent No. 1 to disclose and provide the addresses of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the Petitioners forthwith.”
(emphasis added)
19. All concerned Respondents to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. Eleventh to fourteenth Respondents shall ensure that compliance is made with the aforesaid ad-interim order immediately on receiving a communication of this order by any permissible mode from the Advocate for the Petitioners.
20. At this stage, we may also make a useful reference to the provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 and in particular Rule 3 thereof. Our attention is also invited to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 681.
21. Considering the obligations of intermediaries under the said Rules of 2011 and the definition of intermediaries in clause (i) of Rule 2 read with Clause (w) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Union of India is not powerless to ensure that the aforesaid ad-interim orders of this Court are implemented against eleventh to fourteenth Respondents. The learned ASG represents the Union of India. We direct the Union of India to ensure that the aforesaid ad-interim orders are implemented.
22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners prays for leave to amend in terms of the draft tendered across the bar. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. In addition to amendment permitted as aforesaid, we permit amendment in terms of draft taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.