The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dropped suo motu contempt proceedings against a lawyer for taking a screenshot of a court proceeding and posting it on his LinkedIn account.
Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, however, issued a warning to advocate S. Kakrania not to repeat such conduct in future.
In his affidavit, the lawyer tendered an unconditional apology and accepted that the publication of the screenshot of Court proceedings without the leave of the Court was incorrect. He added he had deleted the screenshot after his Counsel notified it to him.
He also explained that the statement made in the publication was wholly unintentional. He did not want to lower the dignity or the majesty of the Court.
On August 12, the Court had initiated the suo-motu contempt proceedings against the lawyer.
The screenshot was posted with the caption “We are #happy to#share that we managed to obtain an#Ante‐#Arbitration#Injunction (ICC Arbitration) in a matter before the Calcutta High Court”.
The court had termed the publication ‘in bad taste’.
Justice Mantha had said that a family member, who had received it from a classmate from out of town, brought the matter to his notice.
In the opinion of Justice Mantha, the following impropriety in the context of the publication of the said screenshot were made out-
[a] a screenshot of Court Proceedings has been taken which is equivalent to a photograph of a Court Proceeding, without the leave of this Court.
[b] The screenshot was published on a personal page of a website called ‘Linked In’ about two months ago without the leave or knowledge of this Court
[c] an insinuation may be evident from the aforesaid writing on the page in question seen along with the screenshot.
The alleged contemnor advocate S. Kakrania, who was personally present in the court on August 12 had expressed serious regret and tendered an unconditional apology to the Court for his actions.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Mitra, representing the original defendants in the suit had also submitted that the language used in the website could have been happier and the expression ‘managed’ should not be misconstrued in any other manner by the Court.
Mitra had submitted that the expression ‘managed’ must be understood to mean ‘succeeded’ i.e. succeeded to have obtained an order in the nature of an anti‐suit injunction / anti-arbitration injunction which is otherwise not normally granted.
Read the Order dated Aug 25, 2020
http://theleaflet.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Calcutta-HC_Screeshot_25_08_2020.pdf
Read the Order dated Aug 12, 2020
http://theleaflet.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Calcutta-HC_Screenshot_Contempt.pdf
