Thursday, October 17, 2019
facebook
Haryana

Posted at: Nov 16, 2018, 12:08 AM; last updated: Nov 16, 2018, 12:08 AM (IST)

SC to aid of lawyer caught in FB post row, no jail for him

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, November 15

The Supreme Court has set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order sentencing a Narnaul-based lawyer to one-month imprisonment for a Facebook post against a Judge of the High Court, holding that it is not a case of contempt.

“We have gone through the matter in detail and are of the view that it is not a case where contempt action should have been taken against the appellant, who is an advocate. We thus allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court,” a Bench headed by Justice AK Sikri said, allowing advocate Manish Vashishth’s appeal.

Vashishth had challenged the High Court’s June 3 order sentencing him to a month’s simple imprisonment for his Facebook post against a Judge in connection with a judicial order passed by him on August 24 last year in personal litigation involving the lawyer.

In his Facebook post, Vashishth had alleged that the judgment passed against him by the High Court was “not speaking” and a better decision could have been written by a magistrate. He had said the Judge did not upload the judgment as he might not have understood what was to be written.

The High Court, which took suo motu cognisance of the Facebook post, held on May 31 that the publication amounted to lowering the dignity of the judicial system. Such a derogatory remark was contemptuous on the face of it, the High Court had said, holding the contemnor guilty of contempt of court.

The High Court had noted that the general public’s faith in the judiciary would be shattered in case punishment was not awarded to a person scandalising and lowering the authority of not just the court, but also the judiciary, before the general public by his publication.

However, the High Court had had kept the sentence suspended to enable him to approach the apex court for appeal. Allowing Vashishth’s appeal, the top court said it was not a case where contempt action should have been taken against the appellant advocate.

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On