Andhra Pradesh High Court Issues Contempt Notice Against Abusive Social Media Posts

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against 49 persons. It initiated action for making abusive and intimidating social media posts against judges. While 8 more unidentified persons made contemptuous comments, the Court ordered the Government to trace them. Contemnors include a Member of Parliament and a former Member of Legislative Assembly: MP Nandigam Suresh and former MLA Amanchi Krishna Mohan both belonging to the ruling YSR Congress party.

Brief Facts of the Case 

A bench comprising of Chief Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice C Praveen Kumar gave the above mentioned order. It observed that comments made by these accused were abusive, hateful and contemptuous. The Accused made public statements attributing motive, caste and corruption allegations against Supreme Court judges, High Court judges and High Court itself.

The Contemnors 

The Court referred to the live speech made by Nandigam Suresh (MLA) who is member of YSR Congress party. Sakshi new broadcasted his speech. In his speech, he attributed motives to the High Court. He alleged that former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu got to know about the Court’s decision in a case about half an hour or 10 minutes before its pronouncement. 

The Court noted, “A video footage of Sakshi news reveal that Mr. N Suresh in his live speech from YCP office, Tadepalli attributed motives to the Hon’ble High Court that Mr. Chandrababu Naidu is managing the High Court and he also stated that how Mr. Chandrababu Naidu came to know the verdict before half an hour or ten minutes of its pronouncement and he shall be enquired and his call list be disclosed.”

Another contemnor named Chandu Reddy posted life threatening tweets. He tweeted, “Total [of the]… judges are there in the High Court, all those will be cut into piece.” He posted another tweet saying, “Everyone shall be cut into pieces. All Judges shall be kept in a room and a Corona patient shall be left with them.”

The High Court took note of another contemnor, Kishore Reddy Darisa. He posted abusive comments in Facebook against High Court judges.

Certain High Court rulings delivered some time ago this year attracted severe criticism. These incidents took place after the Court made theses rulings. People alleged that the Court gave biased rulings and it favoured the Opposition party in the state. Few days back the Court quashed a Government order. Government issued order for painting Government buildings with colours representing ruling party in the state. In another case, it revoked the suspension of a former Intelligence Chief, ABV Rao.

The Court heard the Advocate General. Wherein he stated such comments are made unwarranted and to scandalize or tend to scandalize the institution. He gave his consent in writing for commencement of the proceedings initiated by this Court. 

The Court issued notice to all the accused to seek their explanation on the statement made by them. They will have to appear in person or through their advocate on June 16.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -