Gujarat High Court: In an application filed seeking the conviction of advocates representing Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd (‘Nippon Steel’) as well as three judges of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’) for seeking and granting an extension of an ad interim relief despite a Civil Application (for Vacating Stay) (‘the Civil Application’) being filed by the applicant under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, the Division Bench of A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi, JJ., rejected the application holding that it was absolutely ill-conceived, frivolous and filed with an ill-motive to demean the Single Judges and the advocates appearing for Nippon Steel. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs for wasting judicial time and directed the Registry to apprise the Chief Justice regarding the periodic removal of videos of Court proceedings from YouTube.
Background
Nippon Steel had filed a writ petition wherein ad-interim relief was granted by the Single Judge vide order dated 08-08-2024. While the matter was adjourned and listed for hearing, the applicant filed the Civil Application.
Subsequently, the Single Judge, while recusing herself from conducting the matter, extended the ad-interim relief order till the matters were listed before another Court. Thereafter, the matters were listed before another Single Judge, who also recused herself, and the ad-interim relief order was extended. Ultimately, the Civil Application and the writ petition were listed before another Single Judge, and the ad-interim relief was extended three more times. Lastly, vide order dated 07-10-2024 the ad-interim order was again extended by the Single Judge, who also observed that the Civil Application would be adjudicated upon along with the writ petition if required.
Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present application contending violation of the decisions in District Development Officer v. Maniben Virabhai 2000 SCC OnLine Guj 115, and Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P. (2024) 6 SCC 267. It was contended that since the law enunciated by the Supreme Court relating to the provisions of Article 226(3) of the Constitution was in rem, it was not open for the advocates representing Nippon Steel to seek further extension of time, thereby rendering the civil application redundant and also on the approach of the Single Judges in extending the interim orders. It was contended that the actions of seeking and granting the extension amounted to contempt of Court under the Act.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court remarked that the present application was the epitome of frivolity filed only to mortify the advocates appearing on behalf of Nippon Steel and the Single Judges.
The Court stated that the tenor of the application and the submissions advanced did not even remotely connect with the law of contempt so far as it concerned Nippon Steel and their advocates, but to the contrary, filing of such preposterous application and making unwarranted remarks on the Single Judges was a stubborn and disobedient conduct by the applicant. Though the applicant had an alternative remedy, the present application was filed by creating a peerless cause and for vested interest. The Court added that by contending that the request seeking the extension was contemptuous, an attempt was made to cast aspersions on the Single Judges in extending the ad-interim order.
The Court remarked that the applicant appeared to be ignorant of the law of contempt, or rather it appeared that a deliberate attempt was made to demean the functioning of the Court by conflating two entirely different issues, though an alternative approach was available.
The Court noted that the applicant had strenuously tried to impress the Court by filing and referring to the transcriptions of live-streamed proceedings filed along with the 400-page long application. In this regard, the Court referred to Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021 (‘the Rules’). The Court stated that Rule 5(d) of the Rules cautioned that unauthorised use/re-use, capture, editing/re-editing, distribution/ redistribution, or creating derivative works or compiling the live streamed feed/videos or using the same for any commercial purpose, in any form, would not be permitted. Further, Rules 5(e), (f), and (g) of the Rules prohibited the same from being a part of the Court record and disallowed the live-streamed videos of the court proceedings to be treated as evidence of anything, and they would also be inadmissible. Lastly, Rule 5(i) of the Rules mandated that ‘no content of the live streamed feed/videos or any observations made therein, would be treated as authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the Court proceedings.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that the Rules prohibited any content of the live-streamed videos to be used as an authorised/certified/official version of “anything” relating to the Court proceedings. The Court rejected the contention that the production of transcripts of the Court proceedings was not violative of the Rules, and the same could be relied upon by the parties. The Court held that the Rules extended to the transcripts as well because the Rules prohibited “content” and “observation made in the videos” and the transcripts were derivatives from the videos thus, they fell within the ambit of “contents” and “observations”. The Court further noted that the Rules cautioned any party from using the court proceedings as evidence, and if they do, Rule 5(l) directed initiation of contempt proceedings.
Thus, the Court held that the use of transcription of live streaming of the Court proceedings could not be treated as authorized/certified/official version of anything relating to the Court proceedings and could not be allowed to be treated as evidence of anything relating to the proceedings. The transcripts were not only inadmissible but also violative of the Rules, thereby inviting contempt proceedings under the Act.
Accordingly, the Court held that indubitably, the application was absolutely ill-conceived, frivolous, and filed with an ill motive to demean the Single Judges and the advocates appearing for Nippon Steel, hence, it deserved to be rejected with exemplary costs.
Thus, stating that filing the present application was a sheer waste of judicial time, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 2 Lakhs on the applicant. Failure to deposit this cost within two weeks would result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.
The Court also stated that the videos of the Court proceedings were required to be removed from YouTube after a specific time period however, it was the discretion of the Chief Justice to do so. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to apprise the Chief Justice in this regard.
[Gujarat Operational Creditors Association v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No. 2559 of 2024, decided on 04-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice A.S. Supehia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Deepak Khosla and Jaydeep M Shukla
For the respondents: Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi, Keyur Gandhi, Raheel S. Patel, Isha Hakim, and Yash Dadhich
