A sitting judge of the High Court had brought it to the notice of the Registry and then to the Chief Justice that Tirodkar had been sharing objectionable content on his timeline.
In a judgment that is probably the first, a bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday, convicted and sentenced activist Ketan Tirodkar to three months of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 for committing criminal contempt by putting up objectionable posts against sitting and retired judges on Facebook.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice SC Dharmadhikari, and Justice RM Sawant, said, "Modern technology and state-of- the-art devises of communication should not result in the abuse of the freedom of speech and expression."
Sending a strong message to users of social media platforms to be cautions about what they post on judgments/judges and the institution, the bench said: "Being a member or user of social media thus confers no license or a wholesale permit to cross limits of decency or morality or committing a contempt."
It added: "If the government does nothing to prohibit social media users from indulging in acts which the Constitution and the law does not allow and expressly frowns upon, that does not mean that the judiciary will take no action. One cannot defame others in the name of freedom of speech and expression. Let everybody know and be aware that the judiciary is not helpless."
A sitting judge of the High Court had brought it to the notice of the Registry and then to the Chief Justice that Tirodkar had been sharing objectionable content on his timeline.
Noting why taking action against Tirodkar was necessary, the bench said: "Public trust and confidence would be totally shaken if due cognizance of such publications is not taken and the person publishing the same is not proceeded against for contempt, that trust and confidence will erode further."
Terming the post as interfering in the administration of justice, the bench said: "By naming judges individually, sitting and retired, and casting aspersions on their character, integrity and impartiality, the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt. This is a clear case of scandalising and lowering the authority of the court itself."
Commenting on the recent trend of criticising judgments, judges being personally attacked on Facebook posts and social media. The bench said: "Members of the judiciary, the defence forces and the police are ridiculed and disrespected openly. They do not have the freedom or liberty to appear before the public and give explanations. That does not mean that they are helpless. They do not speak because they are aware that judges perform a sovereign and regal function. Members of the judiciary are not looking out for protectors or defenders."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Jail")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}