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 police officials/officers on duty and a departmental inquiry has been initiated against SHO Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and explanation has been sought from the ACP Crime-1, Ludhiana and ACP West, Ludhiana regarding this aspect.

5. Accordingly, we direct the State of Punjab to file a status report, in the form of personal affidavit of the Director General of Police, Punjab, regarding the departmental proceedings which are being conducted against any such officials and that the same shall be finalized expeditiously. The status report shall also give an explanation as to how such offending videos, which are constantly being posted on social media platforms since the last six months in which derogatory remarks against the constitutional institutions and against a Judge of the Supreme Court and the Judges of this Court are being made on a regular basis, amounts to an offence under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, The Information and Technology Act, 2000 and other Special Acts or not. The affidavit will also give an explanation as to why any such proceedings were not initiated against the persons who were constantly uploading/posting such videos and why there is dereliction of duties on their behalf in this regard. State shall also give details whether under which other provisions, it has the authority to detain people who indulge in such activities. The needful be done within a period of four weeks from today.

6. As per the report prepared by the Registrar (Computerization) of this Court, the offending material runs into 35 Gigabytes data and is having a play time of 10 to 12 hours.

7. Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.9-Facebook has stated that through its authorized company META, it has located the offending URLs/videos and deleted/blocked the same as per the list provided by the officers of this Court in pursuance of the directions given by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2023. He further submitted that to delete such offending videos at all levels, the primary instrument which was used for uploading the material would be required so that the cleansing can be done at base level. Resultantly, Mr. Bali submits that necessary direction will have to be issued in this context to the private respondent nos.6 to 8.

8. On request of counsel for respondent no.9, it is also clarified that with regard to any such offending material, which is being identified and which is still available on the platforms and request is made subsequently by the Registrar Computerization of this Court, appropriate action will be taken on the same to ensure the earlier directions passed.

9. Mr. Anand Chhibbar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no10-Youtube submits that the identity of the said respondent has under