Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Section of the (‘BNSS’) to bring on record an undated legal notice issued by Brains Logistics Pvt Ltd (‘Brains Logistics’) (respondent 2) through an email dated 18-09-2024, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. stated that the said legal notice as well as the news article published on ‘The New Indian’ and ‘X’ (previously Twitter) contained malicious and contemptuous allegations that lowered the dignity and authority of the High Court and thus, issued notice to ‘The New Indian’ and ‘X’ and also directed Brains logistics Pvt Ltd to file a reply regarding the contents made in the said notice.
Background
The present application had been filed on behalf of applicant 2 who submitted that applicant 1 had filed a petition seeking quashing of order dated 19-07-2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class. It was submitted that vide the said order, the court had directed the police officer concerned to register a First Information Report against applicant 1.
The instant application was filed to bring on record an undated legal notice issued on behalf of Brains Logistics which was received by the employees and directors of applicant 2 through email dated 18-09-2024.
Applicant 2 submitted that the said legal notice was issued regarding the filing and listing of the present petition but did not contain the name/enrolment number/stamp of any advocate. However, the notice had signatures of the Director of Brain Logistics on whose behalf the notice was sent. It was also contended that the notice contained malicious and contemptuous allegations against the Court.
It was further submitted that the said legal notice containing frivolous, malicious, and vexatious allegations was published on an online news media platform namely ‘The New Indian’ on 23-09-2024 and also, on ‘X’ (previously Twitter) by the account handle of the same name. It was contended that this was a clear case for initiation of criminal contempt of proceedings against Brains Logistics as well as the publishers of the said notice.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused the contents of the legal notice, the news article dated 23-09-2024 along with the post made on ‘X’ and stated that prima facie malicious and contemptuous allegations were present that not only sought to scandalize or interfere with the administration of justice but also made false assertions, cast aspersions on the entire institution as well as the Registry which lowered the dignity and authority of the High Court.
The Court said that the notice made serious allegations against the Registry of the High Court by stating that appellant 1 had allegedly manipulated the Registry by tactics and misrepresentation.
Further, the Court observed that Brains Logistics, in the legal notice, stated that the predecessor bench had ‘presumed’ facts while passing directions in its order dated 22-07-2024. The Court said that it was shocked at the conduct of Brains logistics and the same amounted to making of contemptuous remarks against the High Court and the entire institution.
Therefore, the Court opined that sending the undated legal notice was done with mala fide intent and that Brains Logistics had not made any reply regarding the above said contentions to justify the contents of the said notice. The Court further opined that Brains Logistics must bring on record the justification regarding the contentions of applicant 2 by filing reply to the instant application on affidavit. The Court said that it would deal with whether the conduct of Brains Logistics warranted initiation of criminal contempt proceedings after perusing the said reply.
The Court viewed that since private and personal documents had been published on an online news media platform, the presence of representatives of ‘The New Indian’ and ‘X’ was necessary. Further, the Court observed that the publisher of the news article had published the said notice on its platform and on ‘X’ with the intent to scandalize and lower the dignity of the High Court.
Thus, the Court directed issuance of notice to ‘The New Indian’, the author of the news article, and ‘X’ within a week and also, directed Brains Logistics to file reply within two weeks thereafter.
The matter has been further listed on 28-10-2024.
[Vijay Srivastava v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 5587 of 2024, Decided on 03-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners — Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate Punit Bali, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Advocate Rishi Agrawala, Advocate Ankit Banati, Advocate Rahul Malhotra, Advocate Devika Mohan, Advocate Abhay Agnihotri, Advocate Monavi Agrawal, Advocate Rishu Kant Sharma
For Respondents — APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate Deepak Dahiya, Advocate Mohit Yadav, Advocate Gautam Mehlawat, Advocate Lalit Gandas, Advocate Manish
The post appeared first on .