Safiya Malik

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a contempt petition while issuing a significant directive regarding the removal of live-streamed court proceedings from YouTube. The court observed that such videos should be removed after a specific period, leaving the final decision on the matter to the discretion of the Chief Justice. Additionally, the court imposed a cost of ₹2,00,000 on the applicant for filing a frivolous petition and attempting to rely on unauthorized transcripts of live-streamed court proceedings.

The case pertained to a contempt petition filed by the Gujarat Operational Creditors Association against multiple respondents. The petition alleged that the respondents and their legal representatives had committed contempt by repeatedly seeking extensions of an ad-interim stay order in violation of judicial precedents.

The controversy stemmed from an interim order passed on August 8, 2024, in a writ petition, which stayed a June 6, 2024, communication. The applicant contended that as per settled legal principles, the interim relief should have automatically expired after 15 days. However, the respondents sought and obtained multiple extensions, leading the applicant to allege contempt.

Additionally, two single-judge benches recused themselves from hearing the case, after which the interim relief continued. The applicant argued that the repeated extensions violated Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court rulings and sought contempt action against the respondents' advocates.

A division bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi rejected the contempt petition, terming it as frivolous and ill-conceived. The court stated: "We are confronted with a very unacquainted and disingenuous application seeking conviction of the respondents along with the advocates representing them under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1947."

The bench clarified that seeking an extension of an interim order does not constitute contempt, particularly when granted by the court. The court expressed its displeasure over the aspersions cast on the judges and advocates, stating that the application appeared to be aimed at discrediting them rather than raising legitimate legal concerns.

"The sum and substance of the prolonged verbal calisthenic of learned advocate Mr. Khosla is that the request made by the learned advocates for extension of ad-interim order dated 08.08.2024 is contemptuous, and the learned Single Judges, before whom the matters were placed, should not have extended the ad-interim order, after filing of the civil application under the provision of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, and while doing so, they have committed judicial indiscipline."

The court further observed that the applicant attempted to substantiate its allegations by producing transcripts of live-streamed court proceedings, running into 259 pages. However, it ruled that reliance on such transcripts was impermissible under Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021.

"The Rules prohibit any content of the live-streamed videos to be used as authorized/certified/official versions of 'anything' relating to the Court proceedings. Thus, formulation of the transcripts by the applicant from the live-streamed videos runs contrary to the mandate of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules, and hence, reliance placed on the unauthorized transcripts by learned advocate Mr. Khosla needs to be deprecated and highly condemned, which we do."

Significantly, the court addressed concerns regarding the availability of live-streamed court proceedings on YouTube. It suggested that such videos should be removed after a specific period, while leaving the final decision to the Chief Justice.

"We are of the opinion that the videos of the Court proceedings are required to be removed from 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 dismissed the contempt petition and imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the applicant, directing that the amount be deposited within two weeks. The court held that filing such applications wasted judicial time and should be discouraged.

"Thus, 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 ₹2,00,000/- on the applicant, as envisaged under Rule 21 of the Contempt of Courts (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984. The same shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a period of 02 (two) weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, failing which the matter shall be listed before the Bench assigned the present roster."

Case Title: Gujarat Operational Creditors Association v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: R/Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 2559 of 2024
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi

[Read/Download order]