How should the judiciary balance its dignity against the citizen's right to criticise it? Illustrate with recent cases.

Article 19(2) allows "contempt of court" as a reasonable restriction on free speech. Article 129 empowers the Supreme Court, as a court of record, to punish contempt. The right balance protects the administration of justice, not the personal dignity of judges.

Why judicial dignity needs protection

• Public trust: courts have neither sword nor purse, so their authority rests on legitimacy.
• Pressure on judges: in the SCBA's contempt plea against journalist Nikhil Wagle and MP Sanjay Raut (Oct 2026), the Solicitor General called remarks against the CJI "deliberate" pressure. The SCBA said such remarks "instigate" others [1].
• Statutory basis: the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 makes it criminal contempt to publish anything that scandalises or lowers a court's authority [2].

Why criticism must be protected

• Accountability: an unelected institution needs public scrutiny. The Law Commission noted that the UK abolished "scandalising the court" (its last case was in 1931) and now deals with harmful conduct under other laws [3].
• Nemo judex: in the Wagle–Raut case, the CJI is both the target of the remarks and a member of the Bench [1].
• No appeal: in In Re Prashant Bhushan (2020), the conviction for tweets could be challenged only through review petitions before the same Court [4]. A nominal penalty made the process itself the punishment, which creates a chilling effect.
• Consent filter: a private petition needs the Attorney-General's consent [2]. The AG is a Union law officer, while one respondent here is an opposition MP [1], so the filter can be applied selectively.

Striking the balance

• Harm test: punish only real obstruction of justice or intimidation in pending cases, not criticism of judgments.
• Truth first: apply Section 13 first, which allows truth as a defence if the statement is in the public interest and made in good faith [2].
• Recusal: as master of the roster, the CJI should list such cases before a Bench that excludes the judge who was targeted.
• Appeal: create a statutory appeal to a larger, different Bench against original contempt convictions.
• Reasoned consent: the AG/SG should record written reasons when granting consent.
• Self-restraint: the 274th Law Commission Report kept criminal contempt and noted that the courts' inherent power remains anyway [3]. Real restraint must therefore come from judges themselves.

The judiciary's dignity is best earned through reasoned judgments and transparency, not through punishment. Contempt should be used narrowly, to stop real harm to justice and not to silence critics. With recusal and appeal safeguards, this would respect both Article 19(1)(a) and constitutional morality, and strengthen public trust in the courts.