Latest news with #ContemptofCourtsAct1971
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC orders take down of YouTube clip for remarks against SC judge
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered YouTube to remove a video posted on a channel containing 'scandalous allegations' against a senior judge and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the channel's editor Ajay Shukla, saying that freedom of speech cannot be used to damage the judiciary's reputation. A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai passed the order in suo motu contempt proceedings against a 150-second video uploaded by Shukla on May 24. The video, aired on his show 'The Principle', discussed a recent ruling by Justice Surya Kant in the case of Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was asked to assist in the matter, told the court: 'This is something very serious. We are obliged that the court has taken suo motu cognisance of this.' The court said: 'The video clip has made scathing and scandalous allegations against one of the senior judges of this court. Such scandalous allegations widely published on YouTube is likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary.' Attorney General R Venkatramani was also asked to assist the court in passing further orders. Mehta argued that the video was not only scandalous but also defamatory and contemptuous, stating that such statements cannot enjoy legal protection as the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) comes with reasonable restrictions, including defamation and contempt of court. 'No doubt, our Constitution guarantees right to freedom of speech. At the same time, this right is subjected by reasonable restrictions,' the bench said. 'A person cannot be permitted to make allegations that are defamatory and also contemptuous in nature, which attempts to bring disrepute to the judiciary.' Under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, criminal contempt is defined as any publication (by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise) that either 'scandalises or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.' The Supreme Court has previously initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings for posts against the judiciary. In a notable case, the court convicted advocate Prashant Bhushan in 2020 for tweets against then-Chief Justice SA Bobde, sentencing him to a fine of ₹1 or three months' simple imprisonment. That judgment was passed by a three-judge bench on August 31, 2020, which included the present CJI Gavai. The court had then said: 'Free speech is essential to democracy can also not be disputed, but it cannot denigrate one of the institutions of the democracy... the faith of the citizens of the country in the institution of justice is the foundation for rule of law which is an essential factor in the democratic set up.'
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Good for free speech
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. SC gives a fine & necessary order Overturning a Delhi HC verdict, Supreme Court on Friday held that public scrutiny of court orders is not just kosher, but also necessary 'as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries', in the words of an earlier 9-judge bench. SC reiterated public gaze was 'a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice.' The case was about Delhi HC's order to Wikimedia to take down a website page that discussed the court's order on the legal dispute between ANI and Wikimedia. ANI had accused Wikimedia of defamation; the page in question detailed the case – this, Delhi HC held, was 'contempt of court'. Wikimedia moved SC, which on Friday correctly said that 'it is not the court's job to tell the media: delete this, take that down.' Courts frequently bristle at even bona fide criticism, using a very broad definition in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which criminalises acts that 'scandalise' a court. Even Chandrachud's pan-India initiative to live-stream court proceedings was also centred on enhancing transparency. SC in this case used twin tests of necessity and proportionality to conclude that to improve any system, including the judiciary, introspection was key, and only robust debate could ensure that, 'even on issues before the court'. This is not just a blow for free speech but a step towards a maturing of Indian democracy. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
