Whether the court can determine location of a person from facebook post?

 In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned order, insofar as it refused to adjourn the matter on the premise that Akshay Srivastava was the lead Counsel and that he was at Chennai on the date when the matter was taken up.{Para 9}

10. Even otherwise, in my considered opinion, before taking an adverse view against the Counsel on the basis of a Facebook post, and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India, the learned IPAB ought, at the very least, to have given an opportunity to the Counsel to explain the circumstances. Postings on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of the location of a person at a particular point of time, at least by a Court. Even if a Court is to take an adverse view in that regard, the Counsel ought to be given an opportunity to explain the position before such a view is taken. This Court is of the concerned opinion that the learned IPAB was needlessly strict in imposing costs and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India in such circumstances.

 Neutral Citation Number :2022/DHC/005508

CS(COMM) 310/2020 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 W.P.(C)-IPD 50/2021 & CM APPL. 7338/2021

 VINOD KUMAR  Vs  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS 

 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR 

Dated: 12.12.2022

Print Page

FIR For Facebook post : Karnataka HC Orders enquiry Against Magistrate Who Remanded Accused In Violation Of SC Guidelines

There is yet another important aspect which

requires consideration namely, the order passed by the

learned Magistrate granting police custody. To a specific

query made by this Court during the course of hearing to

the learned advocate for petitioner, whether registration

of FIR No.91/2019 and the grant of anticipatory bail by

the learned Sessions Judge was brought to the notice of

learned Magistrate, it was asserted by Shri.Aruna Shyam,

that the same was brought to the notice of learned

Magistrate. This submission was not disputed by the

prosecution. In Arnesh Kumar’s case, Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has issued directions to ensure that the

Police Officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily

and Magistrates do not authorize detention casually and

mechanically. The said directions read as follows:

“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure

that police officers do not arrest the accused

unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention

casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we

have observed above, we give the following directions:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its

police officers not to automatically arrest when a case

under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy

themselves about the necessity for arrest under the

parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41

CrPC;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check

list containing specified sub-clause under section

41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list

duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which

necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the

accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of

the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the

police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording

its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be

forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the

date of the institution of the case with a copy to the

Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent

of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in

writing;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-

A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from

the date of institution of the case, which may be

extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district

for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions

aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers

concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also

be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be

instituted before the High Court having territorial

jurisdiction.

11.8. Authorising detention without recording

reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned

shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate

High Court.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

27. It was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate

to carefully scrutinize the papers and bestow his

attention to the submissions of the learned Advocate for

the petitioner before granting police custody. A special

care was required in the instant case because petitioner

was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions

Judge, who is superior to him in hierarchy. It is

unfortunate that despite binding directions by the Apex

Court in various judgments including Arnesh Kumar, the

learned Magistrate has granted police custody. By this

act of the learned Magistrate, petitioner remained in

police custody in spite of an anticipatory bail order in his

favour. This is a serious matter and requires correction.

Further, the directions contained in paragraph No.11.8 of

Arnesh Kumar require initiation of departmental enquiry.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4306 OF 2019

SRI. JAIKANTH S  SEKAR K Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Print Page

Whether departmental enquiry can be started against government servant on basis of his comment on facebook?

There must be inter connection of the offending conduct and the duty a member is to discharge or tend colour of reasonable relationship between the two. To such an area obviously the operation of Rule 3(1) of Conduct Rules and Rule 3 of Discipline Rules could be projected. But when the link is snapped of, it is purely his private conduct.

33. The very threat of disciplinary action even in respect of private conduct unconnected or unrelated with the duty or responsibility as a member of the cadre would be a haunting ghost. It would hinder a member even to have social intercourse which he legitimately has, as a citizen and hampers his pursuits to develop his personality and stifles his intellectual advancement. It impedes his adventitious thinking, intellectual speaking or writing. Instead of a pipeline for happy pursuits, it becomes a deterrent dragon practically crippling his personality and destroys his dignity of person. The threat of disciplinary action would also operate a parallel spying project and persons jealous of his or inimically disposed or disgruntled elements become unsolicited plain-clothes detectives. Ears are cocked to concocted palpably palatable tell tale stories of private life at once either to deter a member of discharge even lawful duties or induce higher tip's to take recourse to disciplinary route. If we lend credence to the contention of the State, the pernicious effects referred to above would ensue offending his freedom enshrined in Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The conduct of the petitioner complained of has no interconnection nor lend colour of reasonable relation to the duty of the petitioner as a member of the cadre and the link of unbecoming conduct is snapped of. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner does not come within the sweep of Rule 3 of Discipline Rules. We are, therefore, of opinion that the respondents travelled beyond the bounds of their power. The enquiry into the private conduct of the petitioner is without authority or in excess of law. We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned action is beyond Rule 3(1) of the Discipline Rules. Accordingly, we quash the G.O. Ms. No. 2620/G.A.D., dated June 25, 1983 and allow W.P. No. 5552/83 with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 500/-. We dismiss W.P. No. 6568/83, but in the circumstances, without costs."

11. We are in respectful agreement with the afore stated view expressed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

12. The private conduct of the petitioner in uploading the post on social media for limited circulation cannot be linked with his official functions of officer of Corporation. There is absolutely no link between the alleged private act and his functions in the capacity of officer or Corporation servant. Even otherwise also, act of expressing oneself cannot be branded as unbecoming of a public servant. The enquiry into private conduct of petitioner is without authority and is in excess of law. The impugned action is surely beyond scope of Rule 3 of Rules of 1973.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2302 of 2018

Decided On: 21.03.2018

Jayant  Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Borde and K.K. Sonawane, JJ.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 656

Print Page

Whether directing wife not to chat on facebook amounts to cruelty to wife as per S 498A of IPC?

 In paragraph 14 of the complaint, it is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 forced the complainant to apologize and make a solemn promise that the complainant shall not chat on "ORKUT", a social networking site. I do not think that even this allegation can amount to harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as it has no relation to driving the complainant into such behavior as to endanger her life or cause injury to herself. This allegation also does not have any relation to coercing of the complainant into meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. On the contrary, spending long time on social networking site such as "ORKUT" or "FACEBOOK" by a person can be viewed as mental harassment by another spouse and, therefore, if the spouse is advised to spend loss time on a social networking site or desist from visiting it, the advice is capable as being seen as made with a view to keep the marriage intact and not otherwise.

Equivalent Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)2607, 2015(2)Crimes368(Bom.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 251 of 2014

Decided On: 14.01.2015

 Gopal and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.B. Shukre, J.

Print Page

Whether Facebook post can be used as evidence in court?

A Facebook post kept Rodney Bradford from facing possible criminal charges.

The 19-year-old was arrested on Ocober 18 as a robbery suspect in New York.

But Bradford's defense lawyer said the young man couldn't have committed the crime because at the time of the robbery he posted a Facebook status update from a computer at his father's apartment in Harlem.

Print Page