Supreme Court dismisses contempt petition against Nishikant Dubey for remarks against the Court: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 05, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 647

Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI, Sanjay Kumar, J.

When does criticism of the judiciary cross the line into contempt? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving alleged scandalous remarks against the court. The Court dismissed a petition seeking contempt proceedings, underscoring the importance of free speech while also cautioning against statements that undermine the judiciary’s authority.

In Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, considered a petition seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India. The Court ultimately decided against initiating contempt proceedings, emphasizing the judiciary’s resilience and the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression.

Case Background

The petitioner, Vishal Tiwari, filed a writ petition under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India, seeking the initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey. The petition was based on Dubey’s alleged “deliberate and scandalizing remarks” against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India.

The petitioner also sought directions to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and to issue an advisory to all Chief Secretaries to curb hate and provocative speeches by political parties and their leaders relating to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its hearing before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The Court noted that critical analysis and objective criticism of judicial pronouncements are protected under this right.
• Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: This section defines criminal contempt as the publication of any matter that scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The Court referred to this section to assess whether Dubey’s remarks constituted criminal contempt. The section states:
  
  “…contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt”
  
• Section 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: These sections carve out exceptions to what constitutes contempt, which, prima facie, were not attracted in the present case.
• Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India: These articles confer the power of judicial review on the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively. The Court emphasized that this power is a cornerstone of democracy and is essential for maintaining checks and balances.
• Article 129 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the Supreme Court being a court of record and having all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Arguments

The arguments in this case centered on whether the statements made by Nishikant Dubey constituted criminal contempt and whether they warranted action by the Supreme Court.

• Petitioner’s Arguments:
  • The petitioner contended that Dubey’s remarks were “deliberate and scandalizing” and were made with the intent to lower the authority of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.
  • The petitioner argued that the remarks had the tendency to interfere with judicial proceedings and obstruct the administration of justice.
  • The petitioner sought directions for the registration of an FIR and the issuance of an advisory to curb hate speech related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
• Respondent’s Arguments:
  • The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondent’s arguments, but it can be inferred that the defense would likely revolve around the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • The respondent may have argued that the remarks, even if critical, did not meet the threshold for criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue can be inferred as:

1. Whether the remarks made by respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey, constitute criminal contempt of court, warranting the initiation of suo motu proceedings under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied upon the following authorities:

• In Re S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that while the judiciary is not immune from criticism, distortions or gross misstatements designed to lower the respect of the judiciary should not be ignored.
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: The Court considered the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Court considered the definition of criminal contempt.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• In Re S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 339]: The Court cited this authority to support its view that while criticism of the judiciary is acceptable, distortions and misstatements intended to lower the respect of the judiciary should not be ignored. The reference to this case indicates the Court’s awareness of the need to balance freedom of speech with the protection of the judiciary’s integrity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, including the nature of the remarks, the importance of protecting freedom of speech, and the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The Court weighed the potential impact of the remarks against the broader principles of free expression and the judiciary’s inherent strength.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Key Takeaways

• Freedom of Speech: The judgment reaffirms the importance of freedom of speech and expression, even when it involves criticism of the judiciary.
• Judicial Resilience: The Court emphasizes that the judiciary is resilient and not easily shaken by criticism.
• Limits to Criticism: The judgment cautions against remarks that are deliberately scandalous and intended to lower the authority of the court.
• Hate Speech: The Court makes it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand.

Directions

The Court did not issue any specific directions but made it clear that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while criticism of the judiciary is protected under the right to free speech and expression, remarks that are deliberately scandalous and intended to lower the authority of the court may warrant action, but the decision to initiate contempt proceedings is discretionary and depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the balance between freedom of speech and the integrity of the judiciary.

Conclusion

In Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey for remarks against the court. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression while also cautioning against statements that undermine the judiciary’s authority. The judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s resilience and the public’s ability to discern biased and ill-intentioned criticism.