Delhi HC issues notice to The New Indian, X over 'contemptuous' material

Delhi High Court has issued a notice to The New Indian and X for publishing content that is claimed to be contemptuous, in response to a legal notice filed against them

The Delhi High Court on Thursday, issued a notice to online news portal The New Indian, microblogging platform X (formerly Twitter), and one Atul Krishna for publishing a ‘contemptuous’ and ‘malicious’ legal notice that allegedly lowers the dignity of the court, according to a report by Bar and Bench. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh directed representatives of The New Indian and X to appear in court at the next hearing.

The court expressed concern over the publication of private and personal documents online, stating that the publication appeared intended to scandalise the judiciary. “The publisher of the aforementioned news article has published the legal notice on its platform and X with the intent to lower the dignity of the High Court,” the order stated.

Background of the case

The case stems from a dispute between the petitioners and Brains Logistics Pvt Ltd, which accused the petitioners of forgery and other offenses, resulting in a legal notice. The petitioners challenged a Karkardooma court order that directed police to file an FIR against them. They also sought to include the legal notice sent by Brains Logistics in the court record, alleging it contained defamatory claims against the High Court.

Among the claims in the legal notice was an allegation that the petitioner had manipulated the High Court Registry to have a matter listed. This legal notice was subsequently published by Atul Krishna in The New Indian and shared on X through the news portal’s account.

Court’s response and concerns

The respondent company’s counsel denied any ill intent behind the legal notice and argued that its contents were already in the public domain after being read out during a virtual hearing. However, the High Court expressed its shock at the respondent’s conduct and demanded a justification, noting that the legal notice lacked essential details such as a date, advocate’s name, enrolment number, and stamp, suggesting mala fide intent.

The court also stated that the legal notice’s contents were ‘contemptuous’ and ‘malicious’, accusing it of casting aspersions on the entire institution and the Registry of the High Court. Justice Singh remarked that the contents of said notice not only sought to ‘scandalise and interfere with the administration of justice’, but also made ‘false assertions’, casting aspersions on the High Court and its Registry. Thereby, the content was seen as intending to lower the dignity and authority of the High Court.