KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE Vs. DAVID CLEVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Petitioner, who appears in person.

(2.) The Petitioner points out that Respondent no. 1, by making false and scurrilous allegations against some judicial officers of the District Judiciary and uploading this content on Youtube and Whatsapp has committed criminal contempt as defined under Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (said Act). He submits that he has applied for and obtained consent under Sec. 15 of the said Act from the learned Advocate General and the same is enclosed along with the Petition. He urges action under the said Act against Respondent No. 1.

(3.) We have perused the Petition and its accompaniments. The Petitioner points out that respondent no. 1, who is possibly based in the UK, is in the habit of uploading videos on Youtube and Whatsapp groups, alleging that some of the members of the District Judiciary in Goa are corrupt. At least, prima facie, the content allegedly uploaded by respondent no. 1 is quite contumacious and might, if established, constitute criminal contempt. However, the question is whether we ought to proceed any further in this matter or it is better to proceed with confidence in our institutions and our judicial officers who function to the best of their abilities without fear or favor.