GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has issued a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act to three advocates, including Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) President Kamal Nayan Choudhury, on petitions filed by Advocate General (AG) Devajit Saikia.
ALSO READ: Pragjyotish College In Guwahati Awarded 'A' Grade With CGPA Of 3.01 By NAAC
The notice was served on Friday, April 11, following alleged contemptuous remarks made by two lawyers during a recent protest against the proposed shifting of the High Court premises.
The contempt proceedings were initiated in response to comments made by advocates Pallavi Talukdar and Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya, which were reportedly made in the presence of Choudhury. The court observed that no action had been taken by the bar association president against the remarks made against sitting judge Justice Suman Shyam.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair held that the comments made during the protest were derogatory and amounted to contempt. The bench also expressed concern over the growing trend of criticism against the judiciary, particularly from members of the legal fraternity. It added that such criticism, when left unchecked, may lead to erosion of public trust in the judicial system.
The court further directed that news videos containing the controversial statements be removed. Platforms including YouTube were instructed to take down the footage under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2002 and relevant intermediary guidelines. Both the central and state government were further directed to ensure immediate compliance.
According to the petitions filed by the AG, Bhattacharya had questioned Justice Shyam's association with the Chief Justice, while Talukdar allegedly made personal remarks, referring to the judge with a nickname and accusing him of influencing court listings. These statements were made during a demonstration held by the bar association last month.
In an interim order, the court stated that although bar associations have the right to protest, such platforms should not be used to scandalise the judiciary. The order further stated that individual remarks made during such events, even if personal, require accountability when made under the banner of a recognised association.
Therefore, the court issued formal notices to all three advocates and listed the matter for further hearing on May 13.