Right wing website OpIndia falsely claimed LiveLaw – a legal news portal, misreported a case in the Supreme Court filed by student activist Sharjeel Imam. OpIndia’s article – written by Nupur Sharma, its Editor-In-Chief, relied on LiveLaw’s tweets on Imam’s case and screenshots of the causelist and case details from the Supreme Court’s website.
In its article, OpIndia said LiveLaw “spreads fake news” and “drags Justice Bela Trivedi in the case when she has nothing to do with it...”. In her article, Sharma said LiveLaw’s reporting was “blatantly fake news” when it reported on Imam’s plea before Justice Trivedi seeking bail.
OpIndia said there was only one case – before Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s bench, where Imam sought to club five FIRs in connection with a 2020 sedition case filed against him. OpIndia said there was no bail hearing, and that there was no matter listed before Justice Trivedi.
OpIndia also targeted MA Rashid, one of LiveLaw's founders, by using his name in its headline to insinuate communal and religious bias on part of the legal portal.
You can find the original article here. The updated version of the article can be found here.
Fact Check
BOOM found that LiveLaw's reporting was accurate and that OpIndia's claims against the website were false.
On October 22, 2024 the Supreme Court listed two different pleas filed by Imam. OpIndia missed the second case that was listed before Justice Bela Trivedi's bench for the same day. BOOM verified the two cases by going through the two different petitions and other details available on the Supreme Court’s website.
One matter was before a bench led by Sanjiv Khanna and the other matter was listed before Justice Bela Trivedi’s bench.
Case Before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar
The matter listed in Court 2 before Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar – Diary No. 4730/2020, is a four-year-old case where Imam has sought the clubbing of five FIRs filed against him in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. The FIRs filed against him are in connection with the January 16, 2020 speech given at Aligarh Muslim University where he allegedly spoke of cutting off Assam and other North-Eastern states from the rest of India.
The case, now before Justice Khanna, has been listed 10 times since it was first filed on April 28, 2020. It was listed for the 11th time on October 22, 2024, but the matter was not heard since the bench was busy hearing some other case. According to the case details available on the Supreme Court’s website, the matter is now tentatively listed for November 5, 2024.
Case Before Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma
Now coming to the second case.
On October 22, a second plea was listed before Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma – W.P. (Crl) 422/2024 – Sharjeel Imam Vs State (NCT Delhi). This is a new case first filed on October 9, 2024.
In this plea, Imam has sought bail in connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots matter where the student activist is framed as an accused in the larger conspiracy case. In the alternative, if the Supreme Court is not inclined to entertain his bail plea, Imam sought directions to the Delhi High Court to hear and conclude the matter expeditiously. In his plea, Imam submits that the matter has been pending since the past 2.5 years and has been listed at least 69 times but no effective hearing has taken place. Imam further submitted that he has been incarcerated for over four years and 2 months.
This is a new petition in the Supreme Court has not been heard even once. On October 22, the matter was listed but was not taken up due to the “paucity” of time and has been re-listed for October 25.
LiveLaw responds
LiveLaw Managing Editor Manu Sebastian responded to the allegations in a tweet thread posted on October 23 where he said, OpIndia’s “article is malicious, factually wrong & a blatant misrepresentation of the court proceedings, which can amount to contempt of court.”
Calling the article mischievous, Sebastian further tweeted that despite publicly available information, “OpIndia has chosen to be selective about truth and published a misleading article in an attempt to tarnish LiveLaw.”
OpIndia doubles down
After being called out, OpIndia reiterated its attack and doubled down on its allegations. In an updated version of its story, OpIndia tried to justify itself by stating that the matter before Justice Trivedi was “fresh”, has not been admitted yet and that it is not an ongoing matter as LiveLaw apparently alleged. OpIndia got this partly wrong as well.
The matter before Justice Trivedi is indeed fresh, and not ongoing – LiveLaw doesn’t say that it is, but it has been admitted.
OpIndia's contention that the matter has not been admitted is misleading. The case has been registered by the Supreme Court registry and the matter is now up for contention before the judges. The registry admits cases after ensuring that all formalities have been cleared and the plea is free from any defects. The top court judges only adjudicate on the matter - the contents of the petition.