In a significant decision, the Bombay High Court on Monday refused to initiate contempt proceedings against the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] for a press note it issued, criticising the Court’s earlier ruling that denied permission for a pro-Gaza protest. The bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankud made it clear that they would rather ignore the press release than escalate the matter with legal action.
The CPI(M) had released a statement attacking the Bombay High Court’s July 25 order, which upheld the Mumbai police’s decision to deny permission for a protest at Azad Maidan. The planned demonstration was to express solidarity with Palestinians and denounce Israel’s actions in Gaza, which the party described as genocide. The Mumbai Police had earlier rejected the protest request, prompting the CPI(M) to move the High Court.
Senior Advocate S.M. Gorwadkar brought the CPI(M)’s statement to the court’s attention, labelling it as contemptuous and harmful to public confidence in the judiciary. He argued that imputing motives to judges undermined public faith and recalled that similar instances had been treated as criminal contempt in the past, including in the well-known case involving Prashant Bhushan. Gorwadkar requested the court to issue notice to the Advocate General and initiate proceedings.
However, Justice Ghuge, while perusing the press note, firmly declined the plea, stating, “We would like to ignore this, Mr Counsel. They have been saying that they have the right to speak and criticise and condemn our order… let them do it. We would prefer to ignore this.”
Gorwadkar acknowledged the court’s restraint, responding, “That is your magnanimity, Milords. But we will file a formal petition after issuing them a notice.” The court, however, advised him against it. Justice Ghuge reiterated the bench’s stand, saying, “Alright, they have condemned our order, our order isn’t good, we will forget it… we can say even you should ignore this.”
In its previous hearing, the bench had criticised the CPI(M) for focusing on international issues like Gaza instead of addressing the numerous challenges facing India. Justice Ghuge had remarked, “Our country has several issues to deal with… We don’t want anything like this. I am sorry to say, you are all short-sighted… You are looking at Gaza and Palestine… Why don’t you do something for our own country… Be patriots… Speaking for Gaza and Palestine is not patriotism… Speak up for the causes in our own country… Practice what you preach.”
The bench also noted the changing dynamics of public discourse in the age of social media. “We did our duty, they are doing their duty. Let them do it,” the judges observed, underlining their decision to refrain from taking suo motu cognizance of the CPI(M)’s press statement.
While the CPI(M) sought to present its Gaza solidarity protest as a rights-based campaign, the High Court’s firm response exposed the party’s political posturing and unwillingness to focus on domestic concerns. The judges’ decision to not dignify the criticism with legal action, while condemning the CPI(M)’s misplaced priorities, served as a reminder of the importance of patriotic responsibility over ideological grandstanding.
