The Allahabad High Court has warned social media users against posting abusive or derogatory remarks about the judiciary. The Court said such posts cross the limits of fair criticism and may attract contempt proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made the observations while hearing a criminal contempt reference.
Online Posts Cannot Claim Protection as Fair Criticism
The Bench noted that several statements circulating on social media were “most unambiguously contumacious.” It said authors of such posts expose themselves to penalties under law.
The Court stressed that freedom of expression does not protect virtual abuse directed at superior courts. It clarified that reasoned criticism of judgments is permissible. However, abusive language and attacks on the institution fall outside that protection.
The judges added that if the Court takes cognisance of such posts under its contempt jurisdiction, it will not hesitate to impose stringent consequences.
Concern Over Growing Trend on Social Media
The matter arose from a criminal contempt reference under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proceedings concerned the conduct of advocate Hari Narayan Pandey in connection with an incident at a district court in Basti.
Counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that acts amounting to criminal contempt had become “the order of the day” on social media. The Bench agreed that the concern was genuine. It acknowledged the increasing frequency of such conduct in the digital space.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it was not taking judicial notice of the broader issue, as that would trigger legal consequences. Nevertheless, it chose to give judicial attention to what it described as an alarming trend.
Court Accepts Unconditional Apology
On the facts of the case, the contemnor appeared before the Bench. He did not justify the statements attributed to him. He admitted that he had been under emotional distress for personal reasons on the day of the incident.
The Court noted that he was a seasoned advocate with long years of practice. It found no record of prior contumacious conduct. The Bench also recorded that he had tendered an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity. The concerned Civil Judge had already accepted that apology.
The High Court held that the apology reflected genuine remorse and was not an attempt to evade consequences. Satisfied with its sincerity, the Bench dropped the contempt proceedings.
