Freedom of Speech: SC Tackles Misleading Facts Distortion

The Supreme Court of New Delhi stated that it possesses the fortitude to withstand any critique or blame arising from social media discourse, under the pretense of freedom of speech. However, it emphasized that litigants cannot misrepresent facts on social media concerning cases pending in court.

A panel composed of Justices Anirudhha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi observed that judges often respond during legal arguments, occasionally siding with or opposing a party involved. “However, this does not grant permission for any party or their legal counsel to publish comments or messages on social media that distort the facts or fail to accurately disclose the proceedings,” the bench noted in an order dated April 8.

The high court made these statements while commencing contempt proceedings against Assam legislator Karim Uddin Barbhuiya for a misleading Facebook post related to a case under judgment.

The judges expressed dissatisfaction with comments or posts regarding unresolved cases on social media under the pretense of freedom of expression. “While we can withstand any blame or criticism, comments or posts about ongoing court cases on social media under the guise of freedom of speech that could potentially undermine the court’s authority or interfere with justice require serious attention,” the bench remarked.

Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the petitioner, argued that the alleged contemnor’s Facebook post was an attempt to obstruct the court’s proceedings. “When the case was under judgment, the alleged contemnor’s Facebook post represented a clear effort to meddle with the court’s proceedings and the administration of justice,” Gupta argued before the court.

The bench found initial merit in Gupta’s argument and voiced serious concerns about the widespread misuse of social media platforms to post content about unresolved court matters.

The high court initiated contempt actions against Sonai MLA Barbhuiya for his March 20 Facebook post. Aminul Haque Laskar, represented by Adeel Ahmed, brought to the court’s attention that Karim, the alleged contemnor, posted on his Facebook account on March 20, 2024, declaring that “the Supreme Court ruled in his favor and that the allegations against him have been debunked.”

The high court issued a notice to Karim under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in conjunction with Rule 3(c) of the Rules for Regulating Contempt Proceedings of the Supreme Court, 1975. “A copy of this order shall also be provided to the Attorney General of India. The notice is returnable in four weeks. The alleged contemnor must appear on the return date. The registry shall present the matter to the Honorable Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders for listing before the suitable Bench,” the high court stated.

In another case, the high court offered relief to AIUDF leader and Assam MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya by dismissing an election petition filed by Aminul Haque Laskar and others challenging Barbhuiya’s 2021 victory in the Sonai legislative assembly constituency in Assam.