In this petition seeking restraint from circulating a video taken during an altercation, the court held that an additional order is unnecessary as the petitioner can seek remedies and verify facts via metadata if the prior order is breached.
No further orders; petition disposed; liberty to petitioner to seek remedies on proof of breach.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANKIT JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate (M. No. 9899040409)
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, Addl. Standing Counsel for State with SI Surender Singh, P.S. Mianwali Nagar.
Ms. Akanksha Kaul and Mr. Priyank Mohan, Advocates for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
O R D E R % 24.07.2018
The petitioner had sought restraint of respondent No.2 from circulating such videos, which he has in his possession apropos the petitioner. Interim protection in this regard was given by this Court in the previous order of 01.05.2018.
The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the altercation between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who are neighbours, was in a public space and that there have been frequent altercations between them. She further submits that in an endeavour to protect himself from any unwarranted legal proceedings, the video of the petitioner was taken by the respondent No.2 on the day, the incident happened. She assures the Court
that it has not been circulated by the respondent No. 2 and shall not be circulated. However, if it is required as evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings, the respondent No. 2 will be duty bound to produce the same in his defence or as may be directed.
The petitioner does not have a counsel. In the circumstance, Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate present in the Court is appointed as his counsel for the day. He states upon instructions that a video of the incident has been circulated, however, there is no evidence as to whether the same has been circulated by respondent No. 2. Should the petitioner be able to ascertain that there is a breach of this Court’s order of 01.05.2018, he would have the liberty to take recourse to legal remedies, as may be available to him in law. It will be open to the petitioner to ascertain the source of the videos stated to be in circulation by obtaining its metadata.
In view of the above, no further orders are required.
The petition, alongwith pending application, stand disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
JULY 24, 2018 sb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any further order is required to restrain the respondent from circulating a disputed video.
How to ascertain if the video was circulated in breach of a prior order.
Ankit Jain
State
Respondent No. 2
Najmi Wazri
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
