Contempt Case Against Youtuber Denied By Bombay HC: Court's Dignity Cannot Be Tarnished By Irresponsible Content

WHAT WAS THE MATTER?

• The Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. David Clever and Ors. (2021) case was related to the contempt of the court.
• The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent, who operated from the U.K. was indulging in making videos defaming judicial members of the District Court of Goa.
• According to the petitioner, the respondent repeatedly posted videos on online platforms like YouTube, WhatsApp etc., in which he defamed the judicial members and such content fell into the category of contempt of court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• It was the contention of the petitioner that the content would at least prima facie, constitute an offence of contempt of the court.

WHAT THE COURT HELD?

• The Court observed that the main question was whether the Court should take up the case or not, considering that taking forward such a matter would give unnecessary attention to the matter.
• The bench, headed by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, made an observation that the basis of the law in the Contempt of Courts Act is not to punish any action against the dignity of the institution, but to ensure that the rights of the people who come to the court to seek justice are protected.
• To that end, the bench also observed that in such cases, the Court has to be open to such remarks and ignore them in the larger interest. But the Court also warned that such magnanimity should not be equalled to weakness. The Court can punish a person if he/she actually holds the institution in contempt.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

• The Court also observed that such online media cannot be given so much importance that a content of any kind posted on such media is seen as being a threat to the dignity of the institution.
• With these observations, the Court refused to take an action of contempt against the YouTuber and dismissed the petition.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?