Trying To Influence Court Through Media Trial? : Uttarakhand HC Raps Advocate Over Facebook Posts On Nainital Rape Case
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday strongly objected to an advocate's conduct for making public remarks (on Facebook videos and posts) about the accused in the 2025 Nainital child sexual assault case, including comments on the proposed potency test and the medical report, while the trial is still pending, which the court said, had chances of prejudicing the case.It may be noted that the case...
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday strongly objected to an advocate's conduct for making public remarks (on Facebook videos and posts) about the accused in the 2025 Nainital child sexual assault case, including comments on the proposed potency test and the medical report, while the trial is still pending, which the court said, had chances of prejudicing the case.
It may be noted that the case in question involves a 73-year-old man (Mohammad Usman), who has been accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old minor girl. The alleged incident, involving a Hindu girl, had ignited communal tensions and property damage in Nainital in April this year.
During the hearing, Justice Rakesh Thapliyal pulled up the advocate as he questioned his conduct. He orally said:
"What you have done, show me any provision under the Advocates Act, 1961 where you are allowed to do this? Is this media trial going on?"
Taking serious note of the social media post, the Court asked the advocate to read out the content in open court. However, as he began reading, Justice Thapliyal interrupted him, observing:
"Aage na padhiye, kayi lady Bar members bhi baithi hain Court mein aur unke saamne wo cheezen padhne layak nahin hain". (Translation: Don't read further. There are many lady Bar members present in Court, and that content is not appropriate to be read in front of them.)
At this stage, the advocate responded that he never intended to disrespect the Court and tendered an unconditional apology. However, the Court was unconvinced. Further, when the advocate tried to justify his actions by pointing out that many media houses had also reported on the case, Justice Thapliyal orally remarked :
"Lekin aap to journalist nahin ho na. Aap apna kaam kariye, journalist ko apna kaam karne dijiye. Lekin aapne to ab damage kar diya na. Court to as per law decide karegi matter. Ya aapke kehne se decide karegi? Aap Court ko influence karne ki koshish kar rahe hain?" (Translation: But you are not a journalist, right? You do your job, let journalists do theirs. But now you've caused damage. The Court will decide the matter as per law. Or should it decide based on what you say? Are you trying to influence the Court?)
Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, appearing for the accused Usman, informed the Court that the concerned advocate had not only posted videos but had also confirmed the contents of a medical report concerning the accused in his video.
Hearing this, Justice Thapliyal asked the advocate where he learned to do all this and added that he wouldn't tolerate this conduct.
When the advocate again tendered an unconditional apology and assured the Court that he would not repeat such conduct, Justice Thapliyal stressed the importance of legal process and restraint:
"Court ki proceedings hamesha order se hoti hai. Order nikalo, phir chhapo. Order mein jo cheez nahin hai, wo kyon chhapte ho? Bina medical report dekhe yeh sab kyon chhapa aapne? Medical report padhiye aur batayiye jo aapne chhapa wo sahi tha kya?" (Translation: Court proceedings are always conducted through orders. Wait for an order, then publish. Why do you report what is not part of the order? Why did you publish all this without even seeing the medical report? Read the report and tell me if what you posted was correct?)
The Single Judge added that court proceedings must not turn into a media trial.
Though the court was initially of the view that the matter should be referred to the Bar Council, it, however, left the matter and dictated the following order:
"The advocate has tendered unconditional apology of the Facebook post. He also undertakes that in future he will not post anything on Facebook which is pending for adjudication in the Court. He also undertakes that he will go through the Advocates Act and he will conduct himself as per the Advocates Act".