Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Operational Creditors ... vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd on 4 February, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 24/01/2025
Pronounced On : 04/02/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO.2559 of
2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
GUJARAT OPERATIONAL CREDITORS ASSOCIATION
ACTING THROUGH MS. PRITI CHAUDHARY
Versus
ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LTD. & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DEEPAK KHOSLA, ADVOCATE for
MR. JAYDEEP M SHUKLA(6974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR.KEYUR GANDHI, MR RAHEEL S. PATEL, MS ISHA HAKIM &
MR YASH DADHICH, ADVOCATES for the respondents
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. We are confronted with a very unacquainted and
disingenuous application seeking conviction of the respondents
along with the advocates representing them under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1947 (for short "the Act").
2. The captioned Misc. Civil Application (consisting of 668
pages, including 111 pages of Memo) is filed by the applicant -
Association under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The
prayer clauses of the present application suggest that the
applicant is praying for punishment for civil contempt of courts
repeatedly committed between 02.09.2024 and 21.10.2024 of
the judgment of three Judges Bench of this Court delivered in
the case of District Development Officer vs. Maniben Virabhai,
(in Special Civil Application No.642 of 1994, decided on
25.04.2000), and two Judges Bench in the case of Jakhariya
Saleman Manek and Anr. vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change and Ors., (in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4 of
2023 decided on 04.10.2024).
BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE ALLEGED CONTEMPTOUS
ACTION BY THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR ADVOCATES:
3. The applicant in the present application has alleged and
prayed for initiating the following contemptuous actions
against the respondents and the learned advocates
representing them.
4. The first contemptuous action, which is alleged to have
occurred on 30.09.2024, pertains to the appearance of the
learned senior advocates viz., learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir
Joshi, who was joined and supported on his demand by other
learned senior advocates viz. Mr.Mihir Thakore and Mr.Rashesh
Sanjanwala, by alleging that only one learned senior counsel is
permitted to appear in the matter per party and they have
appeared on instructions of the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) i.e.
learned advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi in violation of the ratio of
the judgment passed by three Judges Bench in the Case of
Maniben Virabhai (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
5. The second contemptuous action, which is alleged to
have happened on 01.10.2024, also relates to the learned
senior counsels, who had urged the learned Single Judge to
extend the interim order granting ad-interim relief on
08.08.2024, stating to be against the ratio laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad v. State of U.P. and Ors., (passed in Criminal Appeal
No.3589 of 2023, decided on 29.02.2024).
6. The third contemptuous action, alleged to have happened
on 03.10.2024, which is in the reference to the learned senior
counsels seeking extension of the ad-interim order.
7. Similarly, the fourth contemptuous action alleged to have
occurred on 01.10.2024, also relates to the learned senior
counsels, who had mentioned that "if the Special Civil
Application is decided, the CA will be taken care of".
8. The fifth contemptuous action pertains to the
consolidation of all the aforesaid contemptuous actions, state
to have happened on the aforesaid dates, wherein the ad-
interim order was extended at the request of the learned
senior counsels, alleging as flagrant contumacious in defiance
to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra).
9. The sixth contemptuous action, as alleged, has occurred
on 21.10.2024, wherein it is alleged that the learned senior
counsels appearing for the respondent - Company requested
the Court (before the learned Single Judge) for extending the
stay without adjudicating the Civil Application (for Vacating
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
Interim Relief) No.1 of 2024 contending it to be aggravated
and flagrant contempt in violation of the aforesaid orders.
10. Thus, in nutshell, the case of the applicant is that the
interim order dated 08.08.2024 passed in the captioned writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.11679 of 2024 was
extended at the request made by the learned advocates
appearing on behalf of the respondent - Company, despite an
application filed by the present applicant of vacating interim
order under the provisions of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution
of India.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED ADVOCATE MR.KHOSLA
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
11. Learned advocate Mr.Deepak Khosla, appearing for
learned advocate Mr.Jaydeep M. Shukla, for the applicant has
made exhaustive arguments on the approach of the learned
advocates seeking extension of ad-interim order. Several
remarks are also made by him against the learned Single
Judges in extending the stay by not dealing with the
application filed by the applicant under the provisions of Article
226 (3) of the Constitution of India.
12. It is vociferously contended by learned advocate
Mr.Khosla, appearing for the applicant that after the initial
order dated 08.08.2024 was passed by the learned Single
Judge in the captioned writ petition granting ad-interim relief
order, staying the communication dated 06.06.2024, the same
was further extended and ultimately, the present applicant
filed Civil Application (for Vacating Interim Relief) No.1 of 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
in the captioned writ petition under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim relief,
however, the same was not decided.
13. Learned advocate Mr.Khosla has also cast aspersion on
the learned Single Judges. He has submitted that in fact, when
the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangeeta
Vishen), on 02.09.2024, had rescued herself from conducting
the civil application for vacating interim relief order, the ad-
interim relief, which was granted by this Court vide order dated
08.08.2024 in the captioned writ petition, should not have
been extended. He has also remarked on the order dated
10.09.2024, by which another learned Single Judge (Coram :
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati), has rescued herself
from conducting the matter, and similar argument is advanced
that ad-interim relief could not have been extended.
Thereafter, unwarranted remarks are also made for the
learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S.
Kariel) in passing the orders and taking suo motu action
regarding listing of the matter.
14. While referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra)
as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Maniben Virabhai (supra), it is submitted by learned
advocate Mr.Khosla that the learned counsels should not have
asked for extension of ad-interim order and since the judgment
is in rem, by asking the Court to extend the interim order itself
would amount to a civil contempt as well as criminal contempt.
In order to justify his contentions, learned advocate Mr.Khosla,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
has placed reliance on the transcriptions of the video
recordings of the proceedings of the Courts. The same are
transcribed from the proceedings, which are being live
streamed on the YouTube. Such transcripts are produced by
the applicant of oral augments from Page Nos.418 to 677.
Thus, the transcription run into overall 259 pages. Few
excerpts of the transcripts are also incorporated in the memo
of the captioned application.
15. Learned advocate Mr.Khosla, has further referred to the
various averments made in the civil application filed under
Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. With regard to the
conduct of the learned senior counsels in seeking extension of
the ad-interim relief order, he has further placed reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Heena Nikhil
Dharia vs. Kokilaben Kritikumar Nayakand, 2016 S.C.C. OnLine
Bom. 9859 and it is urged that an advocate should be very fair,
while conducting a proceeding before a Court. While placing
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
D.P. Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors., AIR 2001 S.C.
457, it is submitted by him that the matter should be dealt
with only by the same Judge / Judicial Officer, who passed the
order in question and even if he has been transferred, the
matter should be forwarded to him, where he has been
transferred.
16. Further aspersion has been cast by learned advocate
Mr.Khosla on the learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms.
Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen) by referring to the contents of the
present application in reference to the learned senior advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
Mr.Mihir Joshi. He has referred to the averments made in
paragraph No.114, and it is alleged by him that the learned
Single Judge had a private communication with the learned
senior advocate for that he has produced the transcription,
which was recorded on 08.08.2024 while hearing the captioned
writ petition. It is thus, asserted by him that apart from the
civil contempt, the learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi has also
committed the criminal contempt of court.
17. By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Girish Mittal vs. Parvati V. Sundaram &
Anr.(passed in Contempt Petition (C) No.928 of 2016 on
26.04.2019), it is submitted that the judgment is in general in
nature and binding in rem. It cannot be said that a contempt
petition would not be maintainable only at the behest of a
party to that particular judgment and / or only against another
party but it is always open for any party to seek committal of
any party to trial for contempt, irrespective of their status as
petitioner and / or respondent being a party to such
proceeding. Similarly, reliance is also placed by learned
advocate Mr.Khosla on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Priya Gupta vs. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
(2013) 11 S.C.C. 404. Further reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.10.2024
passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4 of 2023, in the case of
Jakhariya Saleman Manek and Anr. vs. Ministry of Environment
Forest and Climate Change and Ors., in which learned senior
counsel Mr.Mihir Joshi had appeared. Thus, reliance is placed
on the aforesaid judgment to substantiate his allegations,
which are levelled against learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
Joshi. It is, thus, contended that the subsequent happenings in
the captioned writ petition will have no bearing on the initial
contemptuous act committed, as referred hereinabove, and it
is urged that the contempt proceedings may be initiated
against the respondents by issuing a contempt notice.
18. Learned advocate Mr.Khosla has further alleged that the
learned Single Judges should not have adjudicated the
captioned writ petition, since the law in not entertaining the
writ petition involving the disputed questions of law, is well
settled. He has also referred to the provisions of Oaths Act. He
has submitted that in paragraph No.43 of the application, the
applicant has given names of eight learned advocates for
initiating the action against them, both civil and criminal
contempt of Court. He has submitted that such conduct, which
has been referred hereinabove by the learned advocates,
violates their oaths of office and / or constitutes professional
misconduct, which amongst the private communications with
the learned Judge and also constitutes criminal contempt
Courts.
19. While referring to the transcriptions, it is submitted by
learned advocate Mr.Khosla that the learned senior advocates
as well as learned advocates on record have made reckless
allegations against him. While referring to the contents of
paragraph No.97 of the application, it is submitted that the
learned Single Judge perhaps has some interest in taking
action against the counsel for the petitioner from material
outside, or not immediately visible / discernible to the general
members of the public. In support of his submission, again a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
transcript is produced in the said paragraph. He has further
alleged that the learned Single Judge had tried to enforce a
consent against the petitioner, who is respondent No.4 in
Special Civil Application No.11679 of 2024, and even no
consent was given in the matter that he is interpreting. He has
also referred to the provisions of Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, which defines "civil contempt" as well
as "criminal contempt" proceedings respectively.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
20. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned senior
advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi, has submitted that in fact, this
application itself is not maintainable. He has referred to the
civil application made by the present applicant under Article
226(3) of the Constitution of India and has submitted that the
prayer clause itself suggests that there are various prayers,
which are incorporated in the civil application and it cannot be
said that the applicant was seeking prayer under Article 226(3)
of the Constitution of India and time and again, the ad-interim
relief order was extended looking to the nature of the
proceedings and the prayers made in the civil application.
21. Learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi has further referred to
the allegations levelled against the learned advocates as well
as the learned Single Judges of this Court and has dealt with
the matter of the applicant.
22. While referring to the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in
the captioned writ petition by the learned Single Judge, it is
submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi that in that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
order, the learned Single Judge has categorically declined to
vacate the ad-interim order since the impugned matter was
being heard, the same has not been challenged further and
has been accepted by the applicant.
23. Reference is also made by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi
to the averments made in the application, casting aspersion on
the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by him that this may
be the reason that the learned Single Judge has recused from
the matter. Thus, it is urged that the present application may
not be entertained, since no contempt is committed by the
respondents.
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED ADVOCATE
MR.KHOSLA
24. In rejoinder to the submissions advanced by learned
senior advocate Mr.Joshi, learned advocate Mr.Khosla, while
referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-
Company in the captioned Civil Application (For Vacating
Interim Relief) No.1 of 2024, has contended that in the
affidavit-in-reply, it is not contended by the respondents that
the application filed for vacating the ad-interim relief order is
not maintainable under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of
India in view of the multiple prayers made therein. He has
submitted that there is no need for the applicant to file various
applications and an application with various prayers is always
maintainable, including the prayer of vacating of ad-interim
order under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. He has
again reiterated the submissions, which are advanced by him
and has submitted that the learned Single Judge only gave lip
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
treatment to the judgments referred by him and the learned
Single Judge was required to deal with the same. It is
submitted by him that judicial indiscipline is committed by the
learned Single Judge, while passing the aforesaid order.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
25. As we have previously recorded, the present application
is epitome of frivolity. Instead of taking a legal and valid
recourse of assailing the orders passed by the learned Single
Judges in passing the interim orders, the present application
appears to have been filed only for the sole reason of
mortifying the learned advocates appearing for the
respondents and the learned Single Judges.
26. The sum and substance of the prolonged verbal calisthenic
of learned advocate Mr.Khosla is that the request made by the
learned advocates for extension of ad-interim order dated
08.08.2024 is contemptuous, and the learned Single Judges,
before whom the matters were placed, should not have
extended the ad-interim order, after filing of the civil
application under the provision of Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India, and while doing so, they have committed
judicial indiscipline.
27. The genesis of the present application lies in the interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2024 in
the captioned writ petition filed by the respondent-Company.
The learned Single Judge has granted ad-interim relief by
staying the communication dated 06.06.2024 till the next date
of hearing. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
further listed for hearing on 02.09.2024. It appears that in the
meantime, the applicant has filed Civil Application (for
Vacating Stay) No.1 of 2024, before the returnable date under
the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. It is
the case of the applicant that the aforesaid interim relief got
vacated after completion of 15 days, as per the settled legal
proposition of law, more particularly the decision of Larger
Bench of this Court in the case of Maniben Virabhai (supra)
as well as in the case of High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad (supra).
28. On 02.09.2024, the learned Single Judge (Coram :
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangeeta Vishen) recused herself from
conducting the matter and while recusing herself, the ad-
interim relief order was further extended, till the matters are
listed before another Court. Thereafter, the matters were listed
before another learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Ms.
Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati), who also recused herself and ad-
interim relief order was continued. Ultimately, the civil
application along with the writ petition was listed before the
learned Single Judge (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nikhil S.
Kariel) and the ad-interim relief was extended by the order
dated 30.09.2024 by observing thus : -
"Interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2024 shall
remain extended till tomorrow i.e. 01.10.2024. The above extension is
without prejudice to the rights of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to contend
that the interim relief granted vide order dated 08.08.2024, had expired
long before the extension was granted by this Court.
List on 01.10.2024."
29. Thereafter by the orders dated 01.10.2024 and
03.10.2024, the ad-interim relief was extended and ultimately,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
by the order dated 07.10.2024, the ad-interim order was
extended by the learned Single Judge by observing thus : -
"4. The request of such a declaration at this stage is not acceded to,
more particularly considering that this Court has been hearing the main
petition for final hearing from 30.09.2024 along with the application for
vacating interim relief. Thus, if need be, appropriate adjudication on the
Civil application for vacating interim relief shall also be done by this Court
along with the main matter."
30. There are further developments in the writ petition as
well as in the civil application, which we do not find necessary
to incorporate in order to decide the present application, since
the same would not be germane or relevant in any manner.
Serious allegations / aspirations have been cast on the learned
senior advocates, learned advocates as well as the learned
Single Judges of this Court in the present proceedings.
31. The case of the present applicant is premised on the
judgments of the Supreme Court, as referred hereinabove as
well as on the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Maniben Virabhai (supra) as well as in the case of
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) and it is
contended that since the aforesaid law enunciated by the
Supreme Court relating to the provisions of Article 226(3) of
the Constitution of India is in rem, it was not open for the
learned senior advocates and the learned advocates appearing
on behalf of the respondents to seek further extension of time,
meaning thereby rendering Civil Application No.1 of 2024 for
vacating the ad-interim relief, as redundant and also on the
approach of the learned Single Judges in extending the interim
orders.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
32. By levelling aspersions, the action is sought under the
Contempt of Courts Act by contending that the action of the
learned senior advocates and also the extension of the ad-
interim relief order would amount to the "civil contempt" under
Section 2(b) of the Act and the "criminal contempt" under
Section 2(c) of the Act.
33. As narrated hereinabove, the ad-interim order has been
extended and now the captioned writ petition is pending for
further adjudication before the learned Single Judge. The
applicant has not chosen to assail the aforesaid orders before
the higher forum.
34. Thus, the issue, which falls for deliberation before us is
whether the aforesaid action of seeking extension of ad-interim
order will amount to the Contempt of Courts Act or not, in view
of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra) as well as
the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Maniben Virabhai (supra).
35. There cannot be any cavil on the legal precedent
stemming out from the case laws cited before us but it cannot
rescue the applicant from the frivolity of the application. The
tenor of the application and the submissions advanced do not
even remotely connect with the law of contempt so far it
concerns, the respondents and the learned advocates
appearing for them, but to the contrary, filing of preposterous
application and making unwarranted remarks on the learned
Single Judges is contumacious conduct by the applicant and
learned advocate Mr.Khosla. It is apparent that, this application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
has been filed for vested interest. Though, the applicant has an
alternative remedy, the present application is filed by creating
a peerless cause. In fact, by contending that the request made
by the learned senior counsels and the learned advocates
appearing for the respondents in seeking extension of ad-
interim order is contemptuous, an attempt has been made to
cast aspersion on the learned Single Judges of this Court in
extending the ad-interim order. Learned advocate Mr.Khosla
appears to be ignorant on the law of contempt or rather it
appears that a deliberate attempt has been made to demean
the functioning of this Court by filing this application by
conflating two entirely different issues, though an alternative
approach is available. The respondents along with their
learned advocates are tried to be roped in for committing
contempt only for the sole reason of requesting the learned
Single Judges to extend the ad-interim relief, and ad hominem
attacks are made on the learned Single Judges, who have
extended the interim relief.
36. As mentioned hereinabove, there are more than 400
pages, including the memo of the application, which runs into
111 pages incorporating the transcriptions of live-streamed
proceedings on the YouTube. Learned advocate Mr.Khosla has
strenuously tried to impress this Court by referring to these
transcripts.
37. At this stage, it becomes necessary for us to deal with
the reliance placed by the applicant on the transcripts of the
Court proceedings, which are live-streamed on the YouTube,
for which, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 5 of the Gujarat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021.
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") The same reads as
under : -
"5. Limitation and Restrictions:
(a) The live streaming of the court proceedings is for general informa-
tion purpose only, aimed to effectuate and broaden the principles of Open
Court, transparency, access to justice and larger public interest. Live
streaming of the Court proceedings being done with an educative and
beneficial cause, will not be sought for as of right by any of the stakehold-
ers.
(b) No live commenting or live chat will be allowed on the live streaming
being done of the Court proceedings. Any comments posted on uploaded
videos will be moderated by the High Court and approved, if found to be
appropriate, relevant and useful.
c) xxxx.....
(d) The High Court of Gujarat shall hold copyright over live streamed feed
and videos, prohibiting any unauthorised copying of the live feed / videos.
Unauthorised use/re-use, capture, editing/ re-editing, distribution/ redistri-
bution, or creating derivative works or compiling the live streamed feed/
videos or using the same for any commercial purpose, in any form, will not
be permitted. However, web-links to the entire videos as live streamed /
uploaded by the High Court may be used/ embedded for any informa-
tional, educational and/ or academic purposes.
(e) Notwithstanding any provisions of these respondentules, no unautho-
rised recording / streaming of the Court proceedings by anyone is deemed
to be allowed.
(f) The live streamed feed / videos of the court proceedings are not to be
considered as part of the case or court record or for reliance by any Subor-
dinate Court of the State in any adjudication.
(g) The live streamed feed / videos of the court proceedings will not be al-
lowed to be treated as evidence of anything relating to the Court proceed-
ings and will also not be considered admissible as such, in any Court pro-
ceedings in the High Court or Subordinate Courts.
(h) Requests for copy of any live streamed feed / videos will not be enter-
tained for any purpose whatsoever.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
(i) No content of the live streamed feed / videos or any observations made
therein, will be treated as authorised/ certified / official version of anything
relating to the Court proceedings. Only the orders / judgments pronounced
by the respective Benches and the process / certified copies issued by the
High Court Registry accordingly, will be treated as authentic and autho-
rised.
Xxxx
(l) Violation of any of these provisions, will entail proceedings under the
provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and other applicable laws"
38. Thus, in order to substantiate the allegations against the
learned Judges of this Court and against the learned
advocates, the applicant has produced the transcripts running
into more than 250 pages. Rule 5(a) of the aforesaid Rules
clarifies that the live streaming of the Court proceedings is
being done with an educative and beneficial cause, will not be
sought for as of right by any of the stakeholders. Rule 5(d)
declares that the High Court of Gujarat shall hold copyright
over live streamed feed and videos, prohibiting any
unauthorised copying of the live feed / videos. It further
cautions that unauthorised use/re-use, capture, editing/ re-
editing, distribution/ redistribution, or creating derivative works
or compiling the live streamed feed/ videos or using the same
for any commercial purpose, in any form, will not be permitted.
Rule 5(e), (f) and (g) of the Rules, do not permit the same as
part of Court record nor allow the live streamed videos of the
court proceedings as evidence of anything and will also not be
considered admissible. Rule 5(i) of the Rules mandates that 'no
content of the live streamed feed/videos or any observations
made therein, will be treated as authorized/certified/official
version of anything relating to the Court proceedings. Thus,
the Rules prohibits any content of the live streamed videos to
be used as authorized/certified/official version of "anything"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
relating to the Court proceedings. It is contended by the
learned advocate that the production of transcripts of the court
proceedings cannot violate any of the rules, and the same can
be placed reliance by the parties. However, we do not
subscribe to the said submission. The aforesaid Rules extend
to the transcripts also in view of the specific expression used in
the Rules. The Rules prohibit "content" and "observation made
in the videos". The transcripts are derivative from the videos of
court proceedings, and they will fall within the ambit of
"contents" and "observations". The Rules caution any party to
use the court proceedings as an evidence, and in case, if it is
done, sub-rule (l) directs initiation of the proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, the use of transcription of
live streaming court proceedings cannot be treated as
authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the
Court proceedings and the same cannot be allowed to be
treated as evidence of anything relating to the Court
proceedings and will also be inadmissible, and violation of the
mandate of Rules will invite proceedings under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, formulation of the transcripts by the
applicant from the live streamed videos runs contrary to the
mandate of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, and hence, reliance
placed on the unauthorized transcripts by learned advocate
Mr.Khosla needs to be deprecated and highly condemned,
which we do.
39. Thus, indubitably, this application is absolutely ill-
conceived, frivolous and is filed with an ill-motive to demean
the learned Single Judges and the learned advocates appearing
for the respondents, hence it deserves to be rejected by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2559/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/02/2025
undefined
imposing exemplary costs. The filing of the present application
is a sheer wastage of judicial time. Hence, we impose a cost of
Rs.2,00,000/- on the applicant, as envisaged under Rule 21 of
the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984. The
same shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court
within a period of 02 (two) weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment, failing which the matter shall
be listed before the Bench assigned the present roster.
40. In light of the observations made in paragraph Nos.37, 38
and 39, we are of the opinion that the videos of the Court
proceedings are required to be removed from the YouTube
after a specific period, however, we leave it on the discretion
of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Registry is directed to apprise
Hon'ble the Chief Justice in this regard.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
MAHESH/
