Back
SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR
Vishal Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER
This petition under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India seeks initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey, for having made deliberate and scandalizing remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India; for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to lodge a First Information Report under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to issue an advisory to all Chief Secretaries to curb hate and provocative speeches by political parties and their leaders relating to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its hearing before this Court.
2. Normally, this Bench would not have heard this matter but as we are not inclined to issue notice and the Waqf matter [W.P. (C) Nos. 276/2025, 314/2025, 284/2025, 331/2025 & 269/2025.] was heard y the two of us, we would dispose of the writ petition with some observations and, accordingly, we have proceeded to consider the issue.
3. Judicial pronouncements result in an order or a decision which may aggrieve a party or sometimes a section of the public. Critical analysis and
Judicial criticism is protected under free speech, but distortion or scandalous remarks undermining the judiciary's authority may invoke contempt, which is exercised at the court's discretion.
Statements undermining the judiciary and attributing improper motives to judges constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, warranting strict action to uphold judicial authority.
The publication by the contemnor constituted criminal contempt by scandalizing the court and interfering with the administration of justice, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.
A contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not maintainable without the Advocate General's consent, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and accountability.
Statements made in good faith about a judicial officer do not constitute criminal contempt, promoting open dialogue and criticism within the justice system.
The judgment establishes that critical comments about the judiciary, while not palatable, may not necessarily amount to contempt of court if they do not scandalize or substantially interfere with the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
