Supreme Court Slams Lawyer Over Obnoxious Social Media Campaign Against Judge

In Paritosh Trivedi and ors v. Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court strongly criticised a lawyer for running an abusive social media campaign against judges and court-appointed functionaries. The matter arose during petitions challenging disqualification from the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council election.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing pleas filed by lawyers who were barred from contesting the election for not meeting amended eligibility conditions.

During the hearing, the Court noticed that one of the petitioners had allegedly posted false and scandalous comments against a committee appointed by the Supreme Court to supervise Bar Council elections. The committee is headed by retired Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The Bench expressed serious displeasure over the conduct and said such behaviour could not be ignored merely because the person was a lawyer. The Court observed that the legal profession carries responsibility and cannot be used to attack judges through public platforms.

“Petitioner has indulged in obnoxious campaigning, making false, baseless and scandalous allegations against Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and other functionaries. He does not deserve any indulgence by this Court,” the Court said.

The Supreme Court also considered whether criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated against the lawyer. The Bench took note of the alleged abusive language used online and indicated that such conduct directly affected the dignity of the judicial process.

“Show us the website or Facebook of this petitioner and tell us why, right now why we should not initiate criminal contempt proceedings against him and have him arrested immediately. They think themselves to be very clever. They think they can take the law into their own hands. Show us the other petitioner as well. They are very oversmart, as if we don’t know what is happening. He has used abusive language and made false and scandalous allegations against Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, the President of the committee appointed by us. We will dismiss with costs of ₹1 lakh,” the Bench said.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioners, clarified that the lawyer in question was no longer a petitioner. She submitted that the remaining petitioners did not support his statements.

Advocate Siddharth R Gupta also urged the Court not to punish all petitioners for the conduct of one person. He argued that there could be no vicarious liability and that all should not be treated alike.

However, the Supreme Court refused to grant relief. The Bench noted that similar restrictions had been applied in Bar elections in other States and there was no reason to create an exception for Madhya Pradesh.

“We see no reason to grant relaxation … We will not allow this door to be opened by those who misuse the system. These are luxury litigations,” the Chief Justice remarked.

The Court dismissed all petitions, making it clear that lawyers who misuse their professional position cannot expect the Court’s indulgence.