Introduction:

A recent petition has stirred the corridors of the Bombay High Court, seeking contempt proceedings against prominent figures like Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders Uddhav Thackeray, Aditya Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, and YouTuber Dhruv Rathee. The petition, filed by Mursalin A. Shaikh, alleges that these individuals interfered with a sub-judice matter by spreading false narratives on social media.

Arguments:

The petitioner, Mursalin A. Shaikh, claims that the respondents shared a misleading story from the newspaper ‘Mid-Day’ about an FIR concerning the hacking of EVMs by family members of Ravindra Waikar, a Shiv Sena leader from the Shinde faction. According to Shaikh, despite the newspaper issuing an apology for the erroneous report, the respondents continued to perpetuate the false narrative, thereby interfering with the ongoing investigation and judicial process.

Shaikh’s petition emphasizes that these actions violate the Bombay High Court’s guidelines established in the case of Nilesh Navlakha vs. Union of India (2021), which caution against media trials and attempts to influence sub-judice matters. The petitioner contends that the respondents’ conduct constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Shaikh further alleges that Dhruv Rathee and the other respondents habitually create false narratives to prejudice investigations and sway public opinion for ulterior motives.

The petitioner sought several reliefs, including punishment under Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the registration of FIRs against the respondents for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, Shaikh called for the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising the CBI, IB, and ED to investigate the alleged conspiracy to spread false narratives and incite public disharmony.

Judgment:

The matter was initially listed before a division bench comprising Justice Shyam Chandak and Justice Revati Mohite-Dere. However, the petitioner filed an interim application requesting Justice Dere’s recusal, citing her sister’s close association with Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). Despite this, the bench declined to hear the main matter, stating it was wrongly placed before them, and advised the petitioners to approach the Chief Justice for listing before an appropriate bench.