In November 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that criticism of a judge on Facebook is not necessarily contempt of court, provided it is a fair and constructive comment and not an attempt to scandalize the court or interfere with the administration of justice.
The ruling came when a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and R. Subhash Reddy, set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had convicted and sentenced an advocate to one month's imprisonment for a critical Facebook post against a High Court judge.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
- Fair Criticism is Allowed: Citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which allows for a fair and constructive criticism of a judge, the judiciary, and its functioning, aimed at systemic correction.
- Balancing Rights and Restrictions: The right to free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions. Action can be considered contempt if the statement exceeds limits and tends to scandalize the judges and the institution of the administration of justice, or undermines public confidence in the judicial system.
- Against a Judge as an Individual vs. as a 'Judge': Contempt of court does not apply when a statement is made against a judge as an individual. However, if the statement is made against a judge as a 'judge' and has an adverse effect on the administration of justice, the court can consider contempt action.
- Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial fortitude and restraint, referencing previous judgments that advised a "wise economy of use" of the contempt power and cautioned judges against being "hypersensitive" to criticism.
This decision highlights that the judiciary must balance its need to maintain dignity and authority with the fundamental right of free speech, particularly in the age of social media. The court noted that not every critical remark on social media warrants contempt action.
No comments:
Post a Comment