Supreme Court can initiate suo motu contempt proceedings without consent of Attorney General, exercising inherent powers under constitutional provisions; procedure must be just, fair, and follow natural justice principles; notice specifying basis of contempt suffices, as evident from detailed reply filed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Summary jurisdiction for contempt prevents interference with justice administration and maintains court authority; protects public interest, not judges personally; actual interference unnecessary if publication likely or tends to interfere. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Scurrilous attacks on judges regarding judgments or past conduct undermine public confidence in judiciary, adversely affecting justice administration; such attacks must be firmly dealt with, especially in diverse societies. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Vilification of judge as judge (not individual) invokes contempt if clear and beyond doubt; affects administration of justice, including administrative functions; jurisdiction protects public, not personal dignity. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Hostile criticism scandalizes court; personal attacks on judge as individual fall under libel/slander; defamatory statements about judge as judge impede justice, challenge court authority; tendency to lower authority or obstruct justice constitutes criminal contempt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Balance free speech under Article 19(1)(a) with restrictions under Article 19(2); fair criticism allowed, but exceeding limits to scandalize judges or justice administration is contempt; statements undermining court dignity/authority punishable. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Tweets alleging CJI rode expensive bike without precautions while keeping SC in "lockdown mode" denying access to justice are false/malicious; SC functioned via video conferencing during pandemic; tends to shake public confidence in judiciary/CJI. (!) (!) (!) [p_67 to p_77] (!) (!) (!)

Second tweet imputing SC/last four CJIs role in democracy's destruction over six years scandalizes entire institution; reaches millions via Twitter, factor against good faith; not fair criticism but calculated to erode confidence. (!) (!) (!) [p_67 to p_77] (!)

Lawyer of 30 years standing expected to uphold, not undermine, justice majesty; tweets based on distorted facts constitute criminal contempt; attack on SC foundation threatens democracy's pillar. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Contemnor No.1 guilty of criminal contempt; notice to Twitter (intermediary) discharged after blocking tweets showing bona fides. (!) (!)

Judiciary central pillar of democracy, guardian of rule of law; attacks shaking public trust erode system; must firmly protect authority to sustain fearless justice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)