Yesterday, On 3rd October, The Delhi High Court issued a notice to X (formerly Twitter) and The New Indian for publishing a legal notice deemed “contemptuous.” The court observed that the notice was posted on the platform with the intent to scandalize and undermine the dignity of the High Court. The judge took serious note of the matter, indicating that such actions could amount to contempt of court.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notices to the online news portal The New Indian, social media platform X (formerly Twitter), and an individual named Atul Krishna for sharing a “contemptuous” and “malicious” legal notice that allegedly “lowers the dignity” of the Court.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered representatives from The New Indian and X to be present at the next court hearing.
The court noted,
“Since the private and personal documents have been published on an online news media platform, this Court is of the view that presence of representatives of ‘The New Indian’ and ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter) is necessary. It is observed by this Court that the publisher of the aforementioned news article has published the above said legal notice on its platform and on ‘X’ with the intent to scandalize and lower the dignity of the High Court.”
The Court was hearing a petition to quash an order from the Karkardooma Court, which had instructed the police to file a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioners. The case stems from a conflict between the petitioners and Brains Logistics Private Limited (the respondent company), which had lodged a complaint accusing the petitioners of forgery and other offenses, subsequently sending them a legal notice.
The petitioners also filed an application before the High Court, requesting to include a legal notice sent by Brains Logistics through a firm called CPS Legal as part of the record.
During the hearing, the petitioners’ counsel informed Justice Singh that the legal notice contained “malicious and contemptuous” statements directed at the High Court. One of the allegations in the notice was that the petitioner had manipulated the High Court’s Registry to have a matter listed.
Additionally, it was submitted that Atul Krishna shared this legal notice on The New Indian and on X through the news portal’s account.
Counsel representing the respondent company denied any malicious intent behind the legal notice, asserting that its contents had entered the public domain during a virtual hearing when they read aloud.
The Court, however, expressed shock at the respondent company’s actions and instructed it to provide a justification. Based on this, the Court will determine whether criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated.
The Court further noted that the legal notice, being undated and lacking essential details such as the advocate’s name, enrolment number, and stamp, suggested malicious intent.
Additionally, the Court found that the legal notice appeared to be “contemptuous” and “malicious” in nature, casting doubt on the credibility of the institution as a whole.
It remarked,
“It is made out that prima facie the same contains malicious and contemptuous allegations which not only seek to scandalise, interfere with the administration of justice, but also makes false assertions, cast aspersions on the entire institution and the Registry of the High Court, and therefore, lower the dignity and authority of the High Court. In light of the same, this Court is of the view that the contents made in the said notice make serious allegations against the Registry of the High Court by stating that the petitioner has allegedly manipulated the Registry of the High Court by tactics and misrepresentation.”
The next hearing scheduled for October 28.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Rajiv Nayyar, Punit Bali, and Maninder Singh, along with advocates Rishi Agrawala, Ankit Banati, Rahul Malhotra, Devika Mohan, Abhay Agnihotri, Monavi Agrawal, and Rishu Kant Sharma, represented the petitioners.
Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan appeared for the State.
Advocates Deepak Dahiya, Mohit Yadav, Gautam Mehlawat, Lalit Gandas, and Manish appeared on behalf of the respondent company.