The Gujarat High Court strongly criticized advocate Deepak Khosla and his client for making baseless allegations against judges and senior lawyers, calling their plea “frivolous” and a waste of judicial time. The Court imposed a Rs 2 lakh fine and condemned Khosla’s use of unauthorized transcripts from YouTube livestreams as evidence. This is not Khosla’s first controversy, as he has faced multiple legal disputes, including a contempt case by the Supreme Court and a dismissed plea on 5G rollout with actress Juhi Chawla.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court strongly criticized advocate Deepak Khosla and his client, Gujarat Operational Creditors Association, for making serious accusations against at least three judges and alleging that senior lawyers had committed contempt of court.
A Bench of Justices AS Supehia and Gita Gopi remarked that the application filed by the association was a complete waste of the Court’s time and deserved to be penalized.
“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 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,”
-the Court ruled, imposing a fine of Rs 2 lakh.
The Court also disapproved of Khosla using transcripts from livestreamed court proceedings as evidence. It suggested that such livestreams should be removed from YouTube after a certain period.
However, the final decision on this matter was left to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
“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,”
-the Court stated.
The dispute began when advocate Khosla raised objections against the continuous extension of an interim stay order that affected his client. The interim order was initially passed on August 8 last year and was repeatedly extended even after a request had been filed to vacate it. Khosla argued that this violated Supreme Court directives.
His application accused senior lawyers who sought the extension of committing contempt of court. He further claimed it was improper for more than one senior lawyer to represent his client’s opponent, Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd.
As the case progressed, two single judges—Justices Sangeeta Vishen and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati—recused themselves from hearing it. Khosla, representing his client, then accused them of judicial indiscipline. Later, he also raised allegations against another judge, Justice Nikhil S Kariel.
These allegations were presented in an application seeking contempt proceedings against Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. and the senior lawyers representing the company.
However, the High Court found no merit in these accusations.
“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,”
-the Division Bench observed.
The Court further pointed out that the “preposterous application” appeared to be motivated by personal interests and that Khosla and his client had engaged in contemptuous conduct by making unwarranted remarks against the judges. It also noted that Khosla had improperly used unauthorized transcripts from YouTube livestreams of court proceedings.
The application included 259 such audio transcripts, which was a violation of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021.
“The Rules caution any party to use the court proceedings as an evidence, and in case, if it is done, (the rules) direct initiation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 …reliance placed on the unauthorized transcripts by learned advocate Mr.Khosla needs to be deprecated and highly condemned, which we do,”
-the Court added.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the contempt application and ordered Khosla’s client to pay Rs 2 lakh in fines within two weeks.
This is not the first time that advocate Khosla has faced controversy. In 2016, the Supreme Court had initiated contempt proceedings against him and also restricted him from filing civil or criminal cases against any officer of the Supreme Court Registry without prior approval from the Court.
This came after Khosla had approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order that held him in contempt for referring to the Bench as a “Dedh bench” (one-and-a-half bench).
Shortly after, the Supreme Court dismissed Khosla’s special leave petition, noting that the Delhi High Court had stayed his one-month imprisonment to allow him to explore legal remedies, for which no special leave was needed.
In 2017, the Delhi High Court criticized Khosla for making inappropriate allegations against Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal and other opposing counsel.
In 2021, Khosla represented Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla in a case challenging the rollout of 5G technology in India. The case was dismissed as “frivolous” and labeled as an attempt to gain publicity.
Khosla has also made headlines for advocating for audio recordings of court proceedings. Long before the practice of livestreaming court hearings began, in 2015, a single judge of the Calcutta High Court had even permitted him to record the proceedings of a case.
CASE TITLE:
Gujarat Operational Creditors Association v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Contempt of Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
