The Gujarat High Court has strongly criticized advocate Deepak Khosla and his client, Gujarat Operational Creditors Association, for making baseless allegations against multiple judges and accusing senior lawyers of contempt. In a scathing ruling, the court imposed a ₹2 lakh fine on Khosla’s client, calling the case an “epitome of frivolity.”
A bench comprising Justices AS Supehia and Gita Gopi condemned the application as a deliberate attempt to discredit judges and opposing lawyers. The court dismissed the claims outright, stating, “The filing of this application is a sheer wastage of judicial time.”
Adding to its rebuke, the court also took issue with Khosla’s reliance on transcripts from YouTube livestreams of court proceedings as evidence, questioning the accessibility of such recordings. The bench suggested that livestreams be removed after a certain period but left the final decision to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
A Pattern of Contentious Litigation
Khosla’s objections stemmed from the repeated extension of an interim stay order against his client. He contended that these extensions violated Supreme Court directives and accused senior lawyers representing Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. of contempt. Additionally, he argued against multiple senior lawyers representing the opposing side, an assertion the court dismissed as unfounded.
Tensions escalated when two single-judge justices—Sangeeta Vishen and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati—recused themselves from hearing the matter. Khosla responded by accusing them of judicial misconduct, later extending similar allegations to Justice Nikhil S Kariel. His claims culminated in an application to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposing company and its legal team.
The High Court rejected these arguments, stating that instead of legally challenging the interim orders, Khosla and his client had filed the case with the sole intent of tarnishing the reputations of judges and opposing counsel. The bench went further, calling the application “preposterous” and highlighting the “contemptuous conduct” of the applicants.
Questionable Use of Court Transcripts
A significant point of contention was Khosla’s reliance on unauthorized transcripts of YouTube-streamed court proceedings. The court noted that 259 audio transcripts had been submitted, violating the Gujarat High Court’s Live Streaming Rules of 2021. The judges stressed that the unauthorized use of court recordings as evidence is strictly prohibited and could invite contempt proceedings.
“The reliance placed on unauthorized transcripts needs to be deprecated and highly condemned,” the bench asserted. It directed Khosla’s client to pay the imposed fine within two weeks.
A History of Controversy
This is not the first time Khosla has clashed with the judiciary. In 2016, the Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against him after he made derogatory remarks about a Delhi High Court bench. The top court even barred him from filing cases against registry officers without prior approval.
In 2017, he was reprimanded by the Delhi High Court for making offensive allegations against senior advocates. More recently, in 2021, he represented actress Juhi Chawla in a case challenging India’s 5G rollout, which was dismissed as a publicity stunt.
Khosla has also been a vocal proponent of recording court proceedings. Years before live-streaming was introduced, he secured permission from the Calcutta High Court in 2015 to video-record a case hearing.
Despite his legal battles, Khosla remains an active litigator, though his courtroom tactics continue to attract controversy.