Bombay HC slaps ex-journalist Ketan Tirodkar with 3-month jail term for contempt

A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court recently awarded a three-month jail term to former journalist Ketan Tirodkar for criminal contempt of court after taking note of his scandalous publications on Facebook..The Bench of Justices AS Oka, SC Dharmadhikari and RM Savant found that Tirodkar was guilty of criminal contempt after taking note of social media posts indicating that,.” … [the]Judges of this Court can be managed. That some of the Lady Judges act like prostitutes. That some other retired and sitting Judges are landgrabbers.”.Following suo motu contempt initiated back in February 2017, the matter eventually came up before this Bench last March. After hearing Tirodkar’s defence at length, the Court reserved its judgment in June this year..The Bench ultimately found that Tirodkar was liable to be hauled up for criminal contempt, more so since he did not deny having posted any of the contemptuous material online. The Court noted,.“He has proceeded on the footing that the publication is attributable to him, but he seems to suggest that he had either a right to do so or, unmindful of the consequences of the legislation and its provisions, he has indulged in the act.“.Apart from referring to Tirodkar’s scandalous online posts, the Bench also quoted his affidavits, in which he further chronicled scandalous events and attributed them to judges and judicial officers of the Court. The language used in his affidavits was also noted by the Bench to be downright vulgar and spiteful..The main defence presented by Tirodkar in his affidavit was that he lost his balance on suffering from certain adverse court experiences, which led him to write bad things on his website. As part of his apology for the same, he also prayed that he be ordered to do community service in form of clearing of toilets, libraries, lift grills etc..However, these acts of contrition did little to convince the Bench that Tirodkar could be let off for his acts. The Court held,.“There is a clear mandate flowing from the law and namely that this law is enacted for keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled. This is a jurisdiction to maintain the dignity of the Court at all costs. By naming Judges individually, sitting and retired, and casting aspersions on their character, integrity and impartiality, the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt.“.Tirodkar’s decision to individually name and target sitting and retired judges of the Court did not sit well with the Bench. In his controversial online posts, Tirodkar had also created a “menu card”, listing rates applicable against individual judges for obtaining favourable orders. Given such activities, the Bench observed,.“This is not a mere defamation of a Judge/s otherwise than in discharge of his or her duties as such. This is a clear case of scandalising and lowering the authority of the court itself. By targetting the Judges of this Court, the respondent is scandalising and lowering the authority of the Court itself.“.While the Court acknowledged that Tirodkar had often approached the Court in public interest, it emphasised that such a role would not permit him to mount a scurrilous and reckless attack on Presiding Officers and Judges. The Bench also emphasised that while leveling serious charges against judges and court officers, the accuser has a burden to establish and prove it to the hilt. However, the Bench noted that this was not the case with Tirodkar..“The respondent does nothing of this kind..He releases Facebook posts and puts his comments and remarks, on the Judges and judiciary, in public domain. He circulates them with purpose. He parades himself, both as a hero and victim at the same time and seeks public sympathy. He seeks applause and praise from the public as well as sympathy, all at the same time..The respondent does this systematically, but we cannot forget that this is at the cost of the prestige, dignity and reputation of the judiciary which includes this Court.“.While rendering the judgment, the Bench also deprecated the recent trend of personally attacking judges on social media in the garb of criticising judgments, especially since the judges cannot utter a word in defence..It was emphasised that the judiciary was duty bound to exercise its contempt jurisdiction in such cases, to preserve public confidence in the system and thereby protect the institution itself. Relevant observations made by the Bench in this regard include the following,.“The Judges are not taking recourse to this law to protect their own reputation. They are performing a painful task to safeguard and protect the institution itself….…It must be immediately clarified that we derive no pleasure in passing such judgments and orders, but we are compelled when so-called educated people cross all limits. If the Government of the day does nothing to prohibit social media users from indulging in acts which the Constitution and the law does not allow and expressly frowns upon, that does not mean that the judiciary will take no action..…We wish to remind members of the public and particularly the social media users that in the event they continue tarnishing and maligning the judiciary and Judges, a day will come when none will come forward to protect them and their properties.”.As for the case at hand, the Court sentenced Tirodkar to three months’ simple imprisonment, in addition to a payment of Rs 2000 as fine after noting,.“We have, on independent and impartial application of our mind to the facts and circumstances, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt. That his apology is not only belated but lacks bona fides as well….Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent does not deserve any sympathy. There are no mitigating circumstances at all. The respondent deserves severe punishment.”.Read the Judgment: