Judiciary's Handling of Contempt and Criticism

The judiciary's approach to contempt, especially in separating fair criticism from contemptuous attacks by journalists, lawyers, activists, and scholars, shows inconsistency. This inconsistency arises due to:

• Inconsistent Differentiation: Difficulty in distinguishing between fair criticism, exaggerated criticism, politically motivated comments, defamatory remarks, and speech that obstructs justice. 
• Challenges Faced by the Judiciary:
  • Handling misinformation and political pressure
  • Dealing with abusive online discourse
  • Addressing declining public trust

Recent Controversies and Judicial Comments

Recent remarks by the Bench suggest a judiciary less tolerant of external scrutiny:

• Comments by CJI Surya Kant:
  • Described certain legal actors as “parasites” and RTI-based activists as “cockroaches”.
  • Later clarified the remarks targeted individuals with bogus degrees rather than critics, yet the language was deemed inappropriate.
• NCERT Textbook Controversy: Supreme Court's exclusion of three academics from curriculum work without a hearing raised concerns about impartiality. 
• Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case: Granted relief but imposed a gag order, urging state non-prosecution as a concession rather than legality determination. 

Impact of Judicial Remarks

Comments made outside formal contempt proceedings can discourage criticism and activism:

• Chilling Effect: Remarks can function as institutional condemnation without due process. 
• RTI Act and Activism: Criticism of RTI-based activism can undermine its legitimacy as a tool for accountability. 

Contrasting Perspective

Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that judges, being public actors with state power, should not defensively counter all critiques, promoting better relations with the bar, press, and academia.

Recent developments have reversed these improved relations.