Case Title: In Re Vijay Kurle and others
The Supreme Court made some remarks on the appropriate parameters for critiquing a ruling while finding three people in contempt of court for levelling scandalous charges against the Judges.
The Supreme Court ruled that a person must have some authority or information before criticising a judge's qualifications or moral character.
"No doubt, any citizen can comment or criticise the judgment of this Court. However, that citizen must have some standing or knowledge before challenging the ability, capability, knowledge, honesty, integrity, and impartiality of a Judge of the highest court of the land", observed a bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose.
The bench issued a warning that criticising a decision should not be construed as impugning the judge's intentions or calling into doubt their qualifications.
"There can be no manner of doubt that any citizen of the country can criticise the judgments delivered by any Court including this Court. However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge".
The primary defence of the accused contemnors was that notice should have been given in accordance with the requirements of the Contempt of Courts Act and that any breach of that statute would render the entire case null and void. The court was of the opinion that they do not find any substance in this reasoning. Given that this Court has the constitutional authority to penalise for contempt of itself, this authority cannot be limited or removed even by legislative action.
The bench said that while most judges are reluctant to declare someone in contempt even when they are target of personal assaults, the court cannot remain silent when there is a coordinated effort to defame the judiciary.
"By and large Judges are reluctant to take action under contempt laws when a personal attack is made on them. However, when there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar who profess to be members of an organization having a large following, then the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made. If such allegations which have not only been communicated to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India but also widely circulated on social media are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in the entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects the majesty of the law".
The Supreme Court looked into many rulings. Some of them were Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v.The Chief Justice and Judges of the Pepsu High Court, P.N.Duda v. P.Shiv Shanker and Others, Anil Kumar Gupta v. K.Subba Rao and Ors. Relying on the aforementioned judgments, the Court was of the view that the complaint sent by Shri Vijay Kurle was in connivance and at the behest of Shri Nilesh Ojha. Therefore, the court had no doubt that all three i.e. Shri Vijay Kurle, Shri Rashid Khan Pathan and Shri Nilesh Ojha were working in tandem and making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against the Members of the Bench, probably with the intention that the Members of the Bench would thereafter not take action against Shri Nedumpara.