PANAJI
The power of contempt of court should not be used to defend the dignity of the court, but rather to protect the rights of people, the Bombay High Court at Goa has said.
A bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court who presided over the Goa bench last week, disposed a petition filed by activist Kashinath Shetye who alleged that one David Cleaver, a UK national, had earned the court’s contempt through his allegations against lower judiciary calling them corrupt in a series of videos on YouTube and WhatsApp.
“According to us the shoulders of our institution are broad enough to shrug off such scurrilous allegations. The dignity and authority of our judicial institutions are neither dependent on the opinions allegedly expressed by Respondent No.1 (David Cleaver) nor can the dignity of our institution and its officers be tarnished by such stray slights or irresponsible content,” the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Mahesh Sonak said.
“Such content… is best treated with contempt, rather than in contempt particularly since Respondent No 1 has neither bothered to cite any specific instances nor bothered to lodge any complaints backed by even, prima facie, credible material. The inquiries made on our administrative side revealed the irresponsibility of the comments and the possible use of the uploader as a front by some disgruntled litigants,” the court said.
“Therefore to take this matter any further might only serve to feed the publicity craze of those that have uploaded this content to provoke rather than out of some concern to bring to fore some genuine grievance concerning the administration of justice in Goa,” the court added.
The court said that the power of contempt is vested with courts since it has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice.
“This power is to be only sparingly exercised, not to protect the dignity of the court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the people so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed, or interfered with,” the High Court said.
The court, however, observed that “at least, prima facie, the content allegedly uploaded is quite contumacious and might, if established, constitute criminal contempt. However, the question is whether we ought to proceed any further in this matter or it is better to proceed with confidence in our institutions and our judicial officers who function to the best of their abilities without fear or favor.”
