Full Text
#2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
For the Petitioner :
For the Respondent : Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Ms. Aakashi Lodha, Mr. Sajeevi Seshadri, Mr. Aaditya Vijakumar, Mr. Hemant Kumar, Mr. Pulkit Kaushik and Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Advocates
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocates for State SI Vijay Kumar, PS Mayur Vihar
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
2018:DHC:7001-DB
1. The present criminal contempt petition has been initiated on a reference received from a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. The backdrop, in which it arises, can be briefly encapsulated as follows:
3. The petitioner, Ms. Mala alias Riya instituted a writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl) 2480/2018, seeking directions to the State to cause the removal of derogatory remarks made against her and her community by a post on Facebook, the popular social networking site.
4. On notice being issued by this Court, a status report dated 27.08.2018, which forms the fulcrum of the present criminal contempt, was filed. The same was authored by Inspector Manoj Kumar Sharma, SHO, Police Station Mayur Vihar (hereinafter referred to as ‘concerned SHO’), the alleged contemnor.
5. The learned Single Judge, and we may say rightly so, proceeded on the basis of an assertion made in the said status report, insofar as, it stated as follows: “a letter has been sent to facebook.com through Cyber Cell East Delhi to remove the contents/photographs uploaded on the site in connection with the petitioner.”
6. As is an admitted position, at the time the said status report was filed by the concerned SHO, no communication, in fact, had been addressed to Facebook by the competent authority, requiring the latter to remove the alleged objectionable material posted on its website.
7. It is, in this view that, the learned Single Judge vide reference dated 25.09.2018, sought initiation of appropriate action for criminal contempt against the concerned SHO, inter alia, for the reasons, expressed in paragraph 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the said reference dated 25.09.2018, which are as follows:
8. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned SHO, at the outset, states that, it was not his intention to misdirect or mislead this Court, and he tenders an unconditional apology and deeply regrets the inadvertent albeit bonafide error in the statement above extracted, made in the said status report dated 27.08.2018.
9. By way of explanation, it has been stated on behalf of the concerned SHO that, in fact, vide communication dated 25.08.2018, addressed to the ACP of the Cyber Cell, East District, the complaint of the petitioner, in relation to the alleged objectionable post, had been forwarded to the latter, for rendering the requisite technical assistance and causing removal of the said objectionable post from Facebook. An annexure to the concerned SHO’s communication dated 25.08.2018, which is on the record, is canvassed in this behalf.
10. By reference to the affidavit dated 20.09.2018, filed by the concerned SHO, in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge on 18.09.2018, it is emphasised that the expression “a letter was sent to facebook.com through Cyber Cell East Delhi” was a bonafide language error, inasmuch as, what was intended to be stated was that, a communication had already been addressed to the Cyber Cell, East District, for taking necessary steps for removal of the said objectionable post.
11. Predicated on the above, it is urged on behalf of the concerned SHO that, there was no attempt to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. Even otherwise, he had tendered an unconditional apology and expressed his regret at the first opportunity, prior to the initiation of present criminal reference.
12. Be that as it may, officials of the Delhi Police are required to be held to the high standards by which they profess their conduct to be judged.
13. In view of the foregoing, it is incumbent upon this Court to direct the concerned SHO, as well as, other officials of the Delhi Police to exercise caution, care and diligence while responding to proceedings pending adjudication before the Court.
14. However, in our considered view, although the expression employed by the concerned SHO in the subject status report could be said to misdirect the proceedings, the same in our view does not constitute a deliberate and wilful attempt to mislead the Court or interfere in the administration of justice. Furthermore, the concerned SHO has, at the first opportunity, expressed unconditional regret and apology for the language error that occurred on his behalf, and it is our view that, he has expressed appropriate remorse for having misdirected this Court in any manner, whatsoever.
15. In view of the foregoing, the notice of criminal contempt issued to the concerned SHO is hereby discharged, whilst directing him to exercise due caution, henceforth. The officers of the Delhi Police are directed to eschew from filing status reports in a casual and cavalier manner.
16. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (JUDGE) OCTOBER 30, 2018 as