Policing the Digital Courtroom: Calcutta HC Demands Action Plan Against Online Slander

In a move highlighting the growing friction between the digital frontier and judicial independence, the Calcutta High Court has directed the State’s Director General of Police (DGP) to clarify the existing framework—or lack thereof—for dealing with malicious online campaigns targeting the judiciary.

Justice Jay Sengupta issued the directive on May 21, following revelations that a YouTube video had cast "wanton aspersions" on the Court, specifically in connection to a case involving the high-profile Hindu monk, Swami Pradiptananda (also known as Kartik Maharaj).

The Digital Shadow Over Judicial Proceedings The case originated from a petition seeking the quashing of rape charges against Swami Pradiptananda, a Padma Shri awardee. However, the legal proceedings were overshadowed by a campaign of misinformation.

The Court took serious note of digital activity that extended beyond typical public commentary. According to the bench, the online vitriol included claims that "adverse steps" were being taken against the parties inside "closed doors"—a narrative spread even on days when the Court was not in session.

"There were defamatory and contumacious outbursts made against the Judges of this Court in general," Justice Sengupta observed, adding that the content in question was described as "very disturbing."

A Call for Institutional Accountability The legal question now shifts from the merits of the underlying criminal case to the broader issue of judicial safety in the age of viral social media. The High Court has demanded that the State police provide a comprehensive report within four weeks on whether an established Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) exists to identify, address, and facilitate the removal of these "grossly offensive, evidently false, and contumacious " social media posts.

Key Observations The Court's frustration with the growing trend of social media attacks was evident in its stated findings:

  • "It appears that, as claimed by the revisionist, there is a youtube video casting wanton aspersions on this Court."
  • "Even on a day when this Bench did not sit, certain imputations were cast as if some adverse steps were being taken inside closed doors."
  • "That apart, there were defamatory and contumacious outbursts made against the Judges of this Court in general. There were other videos as well that were very disturbing indeed."

Navigating the Future By ordering the DGP to report on the existence of a formal, actionable SOP, the Calcutta High Court is signaling that the era of treating online judicial harassment as mere background noise is coming to an end. The directive forces the State to confront the mechanics of how it polices the intersection of free speech and the sanctity of court proceedings.

As the matter is set for further consideration on June 22, 2026, the legal community will be watching to see how the state intends to balance legitimate criticism with the protection of the rule of law against digital fabrication.