The Delhi High Court has directed the officers of the Delhi Police to “eschew from filing status reports in a casual and cavalier manner” after it caught hold of an incorrect affidavit being filed in a case related to removal of objectionable post from a social networking site.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, however, spared contempt action against the Inspector, who had filed the affidavit, after he tendered an unconditional apology.
The Supreme Court, in several cases, has held that filing of false affidavit before the court amounts to criminal contempt.
The HC’s order came on a woman’s plea seeking directions to get derogatory remarks made against her and her community removed from a post on Facebook. On the notice issued by the HC on the plea, a status report was filed by Inspector Manoj Kumar Sharma.
In the status report, the court was informed that a letter has been sent to Facebook, through the Cyber Cell East Delhi, to remove the objectionable content.
No communication
The HC, however, found out that at the time the status report was filed, no communication had been addressed to Facebook by the competent authority.
This prompted the HC to initiate a contempt case against Mr. Sharma.
At the outset of the proceeding, the inspector, through his advocate, tendered an unconditional apology while stating that it was not his intention to misdirect or mislead the court.
The Bench discharged the officer from the contempt proceedings, stating that his act “does not constitute a deliberate and wilful attempt to mislead the court or interfere in the administration of justice”.
The High Court directed Mr. Sharma to exercise due caution, and said” “The officers of the Delhi Police are directed to eschew from filing status reports in a casual and cavalier manner”.
“Officials of the Delhi Police are required to be held to the high standards by which they profess their conduct to be judged,” the Bench noted, adding: “Officials of the Delhi Police must exercise caution, care and diligence while responding to proceedings pending adjudication before the court”.
