“In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution.” (Para 5)

The observations came in response to a writ petition filed under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution by Advocate Vishal Tiwari. The petition sought the initiation of suo-moto criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey for making scandalising remarks against the Court and the CJI, and also sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs to register FIRs under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against political leaders delivering provocative speeches related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

While the Court ultimately refrained from issuing notice or initiating contempt proceedings, it delivered a strong and detailed order that firmly asserted the judiciary’s role and constitutional mandate, and simultaneously condemned hate speech in the strongest terms.

Dubey’s remarks intended to scandalise, Court asserts

The Court scrutinised the content of Dubey’s public remarks, in which he accused Chief Justice Khanna of being “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India” and claimed that “it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible for inciting religious wars in the country.” The bench unequivocally held that such statements “tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India” and exhibit an intent to obstruct the administration of justice.

“We have examined the contents of the assertions made by respondent no. 4, which no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice.” (Para 4)

The Court noted that these statements amounted to a direct imputation of motives to a sitting bench of the apex court. It also clarified that the statutory exemptions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—which relate to fair and accurate reporting or innocent publication—did not prima facie apply in this case. It added with emphasis, “There is no civil war in India.”

“The statements made reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the Bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as “responsible for all the civil wars happening in India” and “in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible”. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act carve out exceptions which, prima facie, are not attracted. There is no ‘civil war’ in India.” (Para 4)

Despite this, the Court chose not to initiate contempt proceedings, noting that judicial power must be exercised with discernment and restraint.

“We, therefore, refrain from taking any action. This Court in, In Re S. Mulgaokar,3 observed that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, but when criticism is an obvious distortion or a gross misstatement, which is made in a manner designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence, it should not be ignored. However, the power to initiate contempt is discretionary in its unsheathed exercise.” (Para 6)

Referring to the landmark precedent In Re: S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339], the Court acknowledged that while the judiciary is not immune from criticism, the exercise of contempt powers is a matter of judicial discretion—not compulsion.

“…we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so.” (Para 5)

Judiciary draws strength from constitutional values, not coercive power

In defending its decision to not invoke contempt powers, the Court issued a profound reaffirmation of the role of courts in a constitutional democracy. It stressed that judges are guided by values, not ego, and derive legitimacy from transparency, open proceedings, and reasoned judgments—not force.

“Judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection.” (Para 6)

The Court underlined that institutions are accountable not through suppression of criticism, but through reasoned decisions, transparency, and public trust. It observed that decisions are made in open court, subject to scrutiny, appeal, review, and even curative jurisdiction, which are all mechanisms that ensure accountability in a democratic society.

“Surely, courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned.” (Para 6)

Judicial review is a constitutional mandate, not judicial activism

Responding to the broader climate of political criticism targeting judicial review—particularly in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act—the Court categorically stated that constitutional courts are not acting beyond their remit. Judicial review is not merely a power but a constitutional duty, expressly enshrined under Articles 32 and 226.

“Each branch of the State in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts within the framework of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us.” (Para 7)

The Court reaffirmed that the role of constitutional courts is to test the legality and constitutionality of statutes and executive actions, not on political, religious or community grounds, but strictly according to legal principles. It cautioned that to deny this role would be tantamount to rewriting or nullifying the Constitution itself.

“To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution, as the power of judicial review is one of the cornerstones of democracy. This power is conferred in express terms by Articles 32 and 226 by the framers of the Constitution and hinges on the system of checks and balances.” (Para 9)

Reasserting the foundational role of constitutional courts in a democracy, the Supreme Court emphasised that judicial decisions are grounded in legal reasoning, not influenced by political, religious, or communal considerations. The Court clarified that when citizens approach it seeking the exercise of judicial review, they do so to vindicate their fundamental or legal rights—not to invite the judiciary into political debates. In entertaining such pleas, the Court is not overstepping its role but performing its constitutional duty. This clear articulation serves as a reminder that judicial review is a core element of the constitutional structure—intended not to oppose the legislature or executive, but to ensure that all state action adheres to constitutional mandates.

“Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations. When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court’s consideration of such a prayer is the fulfilment of its constitutional duty.” (Para 9)

Hate speech must be dealt with an ‘iron hand’

While the petition was dismissed, the Court did not leave the issue of hate speech unaddressed. In a pointed and unambiguous observation, the bench declared that any attempt to incite communal disharmony through hate speech must face resolute legal consequences.

“While we are not entertaining the present writ petition, we make it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand. Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.” (Para 10)

Such speech, the Court affirmed, is not protected expression. Rather, it causes alienation and humiliation, making it a criminal offence that the State must deal with “accordingly” and decisively.

Conclusion: A judicious defence of Constitutional authority in divisive times

Though the Supreme Court ultimately chose not to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey, the gravity and clarity of its reasoning left little ambiguity. The judgment stood as a powerful affirmation of judicial strength—not through punitive reaction, but through principled restraint. The Court made it clear that while it will not dignify absurd provocations with prosecution, it equally will not allow such provocations to go unanswered when they attempt to delegitimise the judiciary or inflame public sentiment through falsehood and communal rhetoric.

By firmly denouncing the baseless allegations against the Chief Justice and the institution of the Supreme Court, the bench sent an unmistakable signal: constitutional courts are neither weak nor indifferent. They are resilient, guided by law and reason, and capable of distinguishing between fair criticism and deliberate attempts to undermine the judiciary’s credibility. Crucially, the Court’s strong condemnation of hate speech—and its declaration that such divisive rhetoric must be met with an iron hand—also reflects its acute awareness of the growing threats to social cohesion and democratic integrity.

At a time when public discourse is increasingly polluted by communal polarisation and institutional mistrust, the judgment reinforced the judiciary’s dual role: as a guardian of constitutional values and as a bulwark against intolerance and authoritarianism. In choosing wisdom over outrage and clarity over confrontation, the Court not only upheld its dignity but reminded the nation that the rule of law, not the rule of noise, remains the bedrock of Indian democracy.

Related:

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

A System Under Strain: India’s police and prisons in crisis shows Indian Justice Report 2025

“Let the Suspension Not Continue Further”: Supreme Court allows Dalit scholar to resume PhD at TISS

Waqf Amendment Act 2025: An erosion of rights under the garb of reform

The post Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On August 30, the Supreme Court closed the 2009 contempt case initiated against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Tehelkar editor Tarun Tejpal, over Bhushan’s interview given to Tehelka magazine in which he said that several previous Chief Justices of India were corrupt, reported LiveLaw.

A bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, Surya Kant and MM Sundresh closed the proceedings initiated for making remarks against past CJIs, in view of the explanation given by Prashant Bhushan and that an apology has been tendered by Tarun Tejpal, as informed by Senior Advocate Kamini Jaiswal appearing for Bhushan and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Tarun Tejpal.

The bench reportedly stated, “In view of the apology tendered by the contemnors, we do not deem it necessary to proceed with the contempt. The contempt proceedings are dropped.”

This case pertains to Bhushan’s interview to Tehelka magazine in 2009 wherein he had allegedly made statements about corruption against SC judges. Bhushan had allegedly implied that at least half of the 16 previous Chief Justices were corrupt, but he could not provide any evidence to support his claims. The SC took up the case suo moto after senior advocate Harish Salve filed a complaint.

In January 2010, a bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and HL Dattu issued notices to Bhushan as well as Tehelka’s then Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal. The contempt petition was held maintainable by a three-judge bench in November 2010 and after that it was heard 17 times.

On August 4, 2020, the court asked Bhushan’s lawyer if he was willing to tender an apology. But Bhushan declined and offered an explanation instead, insisting that his words were misunderstood. In a press release, Bhushan clarified, “In my interview to Tehelka in 2009 I have used the word corruption in a wide sense meaning lack of propriety. I did not mean only financial corruption or deriving any pecuniary advantage. If what I have said caused hurt to any of them or to their families in any way, I regret the same. I unreservedly state that I support the institution of the judiciary and especially the Supreme Court of which I am a part, and had no intention to lower the prestige of the judiciary in which I have complete faith. I regret if my interview was misunderstood as doing so, that is, lower the reputation of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, which could never have been my intention at all.”

In August 2020, the Supreme Court had found Bhushan guilty of contempt over some of his tweets and fined him a token Re. 1. The Court had held that his tweets were based on distorted facts and constituted a scurrilous/malicious attack on the entire Supreme Court and had the effect of destabilising the very foundation of the judiciary, reported the Indian Express.

The court, while making a final reference to the two tweets, the court stated, “It is not expected of a person who is a part of the system of administration of justice and who owes a duty to the said system, to make such tweets which are capable of shaking the confidence of general public and further making wild allegations in the affidavit thereby further attempting to malign the said institution.”

The court further held that “Fair criticism is not to be silenced, but an advocate has to remind himself/herself, where he/she crosses the zone of propriety, and the Court cannot continuously ignore it, and the system cannot be made to suffer.  When the criticism turns into malicious and scandalous allegations thereby tending to undermine the confidence of the public and the institution as a whole, such a criticism cannot be ignored.”

The court had referred to the press conference held by former senior most judges of the Supreme Court on January 12, 2018. Bhushan had justified his averments based on this press conference. The court opined, “We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer Judges. It would cause suffering to them till eternity.”

Related:

Prashant Bhushan contempt case: The judgment behind the Re. 1 penalty
Prashant Bhushan contempt sentencing: Court should forgive him or warn him, says AG
SC grants Prashant Bhushan time before sentencing
I submit to any penalty which the court may inflict: Prashant Bhushan
SC holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt; next hearing to decide sentence
SC to hear 2009 contempt of court case against Prashant Bhushan on merits

The post Supreme Court closes contempt case against Prashant Bhushan and Tarun Tejpal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Attorney General KK Venugopal has refused to grant sanction to initiate contempt proceedings against former Chief Justice of India and Rajya Sabha member Ranjan Gogoi, for his statements against the judiciary, reported Bar & Bench.

The AG has said that it is true that the former CJI did make some strong statements about the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India, and “the statements apparently reflect his deep frustration with the ills that undoubtedly beset the judicial system”, tweeted Saket Gokhale who sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against Ranjan Gogoi.

AG Venugopal further said, “I had the occasion to watch the entirety of the interview. It is obvious that all that has been said was for the good of the institution and will not in any manner scandalise the court or lower its authority in the eyes of the public.”

On February 23, the RTI activist Gokhale had posted on his Twitter account that he had written to the Attorney General of India to bring to his notice the alleged insulting remarks made by the former CJI against the top court.

Have written to Attorney General for India seeking sanction for contempt of court proceedings against former CJI Gogoi for statements made at the India Today Conclave.

Sanction was given for harmless tweets by @kunalkamra88 & @sanitarypanels.

Why should a former CJI be special? pic.twitter.com/hiDwNBE6d8

— Saket Gokhale (@SaketGokhale) February 23, 2021

In a conclave event organised by India Today on February 12, Ranjan Gogoi had made the following statements, that were laid down by Gokhale in his letter to the Attorney General:

“You want a 5 trillion-dollar economy, but you have a ramshackled judiciary.”

“If you were to go to court, you’d only be washing your dirty linen in court. You won’t get a verdict. I have no hesitation in saying it.”

“Only corporations willing to take chances with their millions of rupees go to the Supreme Court.”

“What is your opinion of the judiciary? Not very positive.”

“The judicial system has not worked for more reason than one.”

“Unfortunately, there are many judges succumbing to criticism made in the media.”

In the letter, Saket Gokhale also stated that the precedent established set by the office, against comedian Kunal Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja is a “benchmark for what constitutes contempt of court in your (KK Venugopal) opinion.” Hence, he was requested to take into account Justice Gogoi’s statements that were “far more contemptuous in their degree and seriousness in scandalising the supreme court” than some innocuous tweets.

Related:

Public’s faith in judiciary is founded on its own actions, not criticism: Kunal Kamra to SC
SC issues contempt notices to Rachita Taneja and Kunal Kamra
Stand up comic Kunal Kamra faces contempt charges for tweets

The post Attorney General denies consent for contempt case against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The top court has decided to proceed with contempt proceedings against comic illustrator Rachita Taneja and comedian Kunal Kamra for their tweets against the Supreme Court and the judiciary, reported Bar & Bench.

The 3-judge Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah decided on several petitions filed against the two over their tweets but allowed them to not appear physically. They are also supposed to respond to the notice within six weeks.

Yesterday, on December 17, the court had reserved its verdict on whether or not to issue them notices. Taneja who runs the page Sanitary Panels, a social media webcomic taking a distinct feminist angle has been accused of “threatening the very existence of the Supreme Court of India”. In one of her impugned tweets, she referred to the top court as the “Sanghi Court of India”.

In Kunal Kamra’s matter, the Attorney General of India granted consent to proceed against his tweets that called the Supreme court, a supreme joke of India. His tweet, “DY Chandrachud is a flight attendant serving champagne to first class passengers after they’re fast tracked through, while commoners don’t know if they’ll ever be boarded or seated, let alone served”, has come under strict scrutiny too.

Ironically, Justice D.Y Chandrachud, while hearing the petition filed by Arnab Goswami challenging the Bombay High Court which denied him interim bail, had expressed his displeasure at the way high courts were exercising their jurisdiction in upholding personal liberty.

“People are in jail for tweets!”, he had remarked. Both Taneja and Kamra had criticised the top court for the manner in which it had fast-tracked Arnab Goswami’s bail plea in an abetment to suicide case with prominent human rights activists still waiting for their matter to get listed.

The matter is now expected to be heard after six weeks, tentatively.

Related:

SC to decide on contempt notices against Rachita Taneja and Kunal Kamra
Stick figure cartoons are a contempt of the Supreme Court!

The post SC issues contempt notices to Rachita Taneja and Kunal Kamra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In yet another statement issued in solidarity with senior advocate and human rights defender Prashant Bhushan, a group called Citizens for Democracy has urged the Supreme Court to recall its judgment in the contempt of court case related to Bhushan’s tweets.

The statement signed by S.R.Hiremath, N.D.Pancholi and other members nd office bearers of the group says, “It is a matter of grave concern that the Supreme Court has held the well known lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court on account of his two tweets. The judgment of the Supreme Court is an assault on the freedom of speech.”

The statement further says, “The tweets made by Prashant Bhushan were expression of anguish felt by thousands of victimized citizens who are at the receiving end of the brutal state power and who cry and hope for judicial protection.”

It implores the SC to reconsider its decision saying, “The people look upon the Supreme Court as citadel of justice and bulwark of democracy. We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will continue to play its assigned role with fearlessness, fairness and objectivity. We urge upon the Hon’ble Court to ignore the tweets and recall its decision holding Prashant Bhushan guilty.

The entire statement may be read here: 

Related:

Prashant Bhushan is an undeclared conscience keeper of the highest court: Odisha intellectuals
SC: Prashant Bhushan held guilty for contempt of court [full judgement]
A silenced Bar cannot lead to a strong court:  Lawyers write to SC

The post Citizens for Democracy urges SC to reconsider decision on Prashant Bhushan appeared first on SabrangIndia.