Misusing black robes: Supreme Court criticises lawyer's obnoxious social media campaign against judge

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on a lawyer for posting obnoxious statements on social media against judges [Paritosh Trivedi and ors v. Bar Council of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions filed by some lawyers challenging their disqualification from contesting the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council election for failing to clear certain amended eligibility criteria.

The Court, however, noted that one of the petitioners had posted abusive comments against a committee set up by the Court to oversee Bar Council elections. The committee is headed by retired Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The Court took strong exception to such scandalous comments.

"Petitioner has indulged in obnoxious campaigning, making false, baseless and scandalous allegations against Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and other functionaries. He does not deserve any indulgence by this Court,” the Court said.

The Bench said that it would not allow the doors of the Court to be opened for lawyers who misuse their black robes.

The Court also contemplated initiating criminal contempt of court proceedings against the errant lawyer.

“Show us the website or Facebook of this petitioner and tell us why, right now why we should not initiate criminal contempt proceedings against him and have him arrested immediately. They think themselves to be very clever. They think they can take the law into their own hands. Show us the other petitioner as well. They are very oversmart, as if we don’t know what is happening. He has used abusive language and made false and scandalous allegations against Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, the President of the committee appointed by us. We will dismiss with costs of ₹1 lakh," the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioners, however, told the Court that the lawyer who had allegedly made abusive remarks is no longer among the petitioners in the case.

“He was dropped; he is not a petitioner here. That particular gentleman Your Lordships are referring to, is not a petitioner in the present petitions. We do not support, whatsoever, his frivolous remarks and statements. We have nothing to do with him,” Arora submitted.

“He will not be, because he knows we have caught him," CJI Kant remarked.

Advocate Siddharth R Gupta, also appearing for the petitioners, urged the Court not to deny relief to the other petitioners. There cannot be vicarious liability, he said.

"All may not be painted with the same brush," he urged the Court.

The Court, however, was not inclined to grant any relief. It noted that in several States, office bearers of Bar Associations had been barred from contesting elections due to various conditions, and that there was no reason to treat Bar election in Madhya Pradesh differently.

“We see no reason to grant relaxation … We will not allow this door to be opened by those who misuse the system. These are luxury litigations,” the Chief Justice remarked.

The Court ultimately dismissed all the petitions.