Judge Rita Kaushik, through Advocate Kshitij Tiwari, has issued legal notices to multiple media outlets, social media platforms, and tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, prohibiting the publication or broadcasting of any news or allegations linking her to Atul Subhash’s suicide case. This directive aims to restrict any public discourse or dissemination of content involving her in the matter.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: Judge Rita Kaushik has issued legal notices to multiple media outlets, social media platforms, and tech companies, restricting the publication or broadcasting of any news or allegations against her regarding Atul Subhash’s suicide case.
These notices were also served by Advocate Kshitij Tiwari, who claimed to represent Judge Rita Kaushik.
Major platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp have been included in this directive.
Key Legal Frameworks Cited
Judges (Protection) Act, 1985
This act ensures the protection of judges during their tenure, emphasizing that judicial actions and accusations against judges are to follow strict legal procedures.
- “No judicial action or any allegations against judges can be entertained without prior official approval or legal authority.”
- Legal proceedings must begin with a registered FIR and necessary court permissions.
Broadcasting Standards Authority Guidelines (BCCC)
These guidelines prohibit media outlets from airing baseless allegations against judges without solid evidence or approval.
“Any baseless allegations, photos, videos, or reports about judicial authorities without approval or valid evidence are unethical and illegal.”
The notice specifically demands:
- Immediate halting of media trials against Judge Rita Kaushik.
- Removal of misleading or unverified content.
- Editorial measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Constitutional Protections
Article 19
- Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of expression.
- Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions to uphold judicial dignity.
“The court’s respect and dignity cannot be compromised under the guise of freedom of expression.”
Supreme Court Judgments
Multiple judgments reinforce the sanctity of the judiciary and condemn baseless accusations:
Harijai Singh Case (1996): Highlighted the harm caused by unfounded accusations against judges.
“Unfounded allegations or irresponsible media reporting weakens the nation’s judicial institutions.”
Arundhati Roy Case (2002): Ruled that public comments defaming the judiciary amount to contempt of court.
“Public criticism without evidence regarding judicial conduct is an attack on the foundation of democracy.”
Media Responsibility and Contempt of Court
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2(c): Outlaws derogatory remarks or baseless accusations against judges.
“Public discussions without evidence against judges, especially women judges, are classified as contempt of court.”
Privacy Concerns and Legal Precedents
- Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy Judgment, 2017)
Judges and individuals are entitled to privacy, making unauthorized use of personal photos or videos illegal.
“The use of a judge’s photo without consent is a breach of privacy and may result in defamation.”
- R. Rajagopal v. Tamil Nadu (1994)
This ruling mandates verifying accusations before public dissemination.
“Publishing unverified allegations against public officials is a serious legal and ethical violation.”
Specific Allegations and Rebuttals
The notice addresses a specific allegation made in March 2024, where it was claimed that Judge Rita Kaushik demanded Rs 5,00,000 for settlement.
The notice asserts that no credible evidence or FIR supports this claim.
“Judge Rita Kaushik’s alleged involvement is baseless, immoral, and defamatory.”
Instructions to Media Outlets
The notice outlines strict instructions for media houses and social platforms:
- Stop any ongoing media trials or unverified allegations against Judge Rita Kaushik.
- Refrain from broadcasting defamatory or false content until a court judgment or official directive is issued.
- Remove all previously uploaded defamatory and unauthorized content immediately.
- Take necessary editorial measures to prevent such incidents in the future.
Legal Consequences
The notice concludes with a warning for non-compliance:
“If you fail to stop the unauthorized publication of content after receiving this legal notice, I will be compelled to initiate defamation claims, contempt proceedings, and other legal actions against you.”
Entities Addressed
The notice was served to prominent media outlets and tech platforms, including:
- Media Houses: Aaj Tak, Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, and ABP News.
- Social Media Platforms: Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp.
- Search Engines: Google.
Implications of the Notice
This case emphasizes the balance between media freedom and judicial dignity. By citing legal precedents, constitutional protections, and ethical guidelines, the notice reinforces the judiciary’s integrity while holding media outlets accountable for responsible journalism.
This development sets a precedent for handling sensitive judicial matters in compliance with the law and highlights the need for verified and ethical reporting in modern media.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Atul Subhash Suicide
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
