Court On Its Own Motion vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 326

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for respondent no.1-Union of India. Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel, and Mr. Mayank Sharma, Junior Panel Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Mr. Aman Pal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent no.5. Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr Vaihav Jain, Advocate, Ms. Gauhar Mirza, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Yash Karunkaran, Advocate, for respondent no.9-Facebook. Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shikhar Sarin, Advocate, and Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Advocate, for respondent no.10-YouTube. Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate, and Mr. Saurabh Gautam, Advocate, and Mr. Saransh Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate, for respondent n.11-Twitter., for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. Affidavit on behalf of UT, Chandigarh has been filed.

2. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-Union of India, submits that needful has been done and a compliance report has been received from the said respondent. He further wishes to file a detailed affidavit and is allowed to do so.

3. Statements of respondents no.6 to 8, namely, Balwinder Singh Sekhon, Pardeep Sharma and Baljit Singh Marwaha have been recorded separately, in pursuance to the charge raised against them vide order dated 20.02.2023.

4. Compliance report on behalf of respondent no.5, by way of affidavit of Mandeep Singh Sidhu, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, who is also present in the Court, has been filed which is taken on record. Perusal of the aforesaid compliance report shows that respondents no.6 and 7 were arrested in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2023. However, there is an admission in para no.19, that during policy custody, both the contemners had given media bytes to news channel and newspaper reporters in the Court premises at Ludhiana. It is also an admission that there is apparent lapse on the part of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(P&H) 326

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWANCourt On Its Own Motion – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (21)

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent