Shimla, May 29,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Superintendent of Police, Shimla, Sanjeev Gandhi, which sought suo motu cognizance against alleged violations of the Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules, 2023. The plea had called for action against Congress MLA Sudhir Sharma, associated individuals, and social media platforms for sharing court proceedings online.
Take Free HimachalScape Subscription Complete this form
Choose Your Membership
Filed as CMP, the application urged the Court to initiate legal proceedings under multiple laws, including the Indian Copyright Act, 1957; Information Technology Act, 2000; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It also sought immediate removal of the concerned video from all social media platforms, citing violations of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate R.K. Bawa, along with Advocates Ajay Kumar Sharma and Vivekanand, represented. Advocate General Anup Rattan and Assistant Advocate General Shalav Thakur appeared for the State and the applicant, while Hamender Singh Chandel represented respondent No.2.
After hearing the matter, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the writ petition had already been disposed of, rendering the Court functus officio. “This Court is of the considered view that it has become functuous officio, as far as the issues raised in the application are concerned,” the judge stated.
The Court advised the applicant to pursue remedies through appropriate legal forums, adding, “In case the applicant has any grievance, he is well advised to independently approach the appropriate Court/Fora by way of an appropriate application or appropriate petition for the redressal of the said grievance(s).”
The request made by the Advocate General for the Court to take suo motu cognizance of the matter was also turned down. “The prayer made by learned Advocate General that this Court should suo motu take cognizance of the events narrated in the application is rejected,” the Court ruled.
While dismissing the application, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
