Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, declined to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a political leader. The Court, while refraining from issuing a formal notice, delivered a detailed order addressing the serious concerns raised in the petition under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

The petition sought initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent no. 4, Nishikant Dubey, for allegedly making scandalizing remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India. It also sought directions to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to lodge a First Information Report under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and to issue an advisory to curb hate and provocative speeches by political leaders concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its pending hearing before the Court.

Also Read: Summoning Of Accused Under Section 319 CrPC Restored | Unproven Alibi Cannot Override Sworn Testimony | Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order In Suicide Abetment Case

The petition, presented under the constitutional provisions for enforcement of fundamental rights and contempt jurisdiction, alleged that Nishikant Dubey made highly provocative and scandalizing statements implicating the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India. Specific allegations included statements attributing responsibility for "all the civil wars happening in India" and asserting that "in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible."

The petitioner contended that these statements fell squarely within the scope of criminal contempt under clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The assertions were described as intended to scandalize the authority of the Supreme Court, interfere with pending proceedings, and obstruct the administration of justice.

Despite these serious allegations, the Bench noted that it was not inclined to issue notice, choosing instead to dispose of the matter with judicial observations. The judges acknowledged that while the statements were highly irresponsible and capable of lowering the authority of the Supreme Court, the institution's strength and public confidence remain unshaken by such remarks.

The Court further recorded that the exercise of the contempt power is discretionary. As noted in In Re S. Mulgaokar, (1978) 3 SCC 339, the Court observed: "Judges are judicious, their valour non-violent and their wisdom springs into action when played upon by a volley of values, the least of which is personal protection." It was also recorded that "courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements."

The Court stressed that while the judiciary remains open to criticism, "when criticism is an obvious distortion or a gross misstatement, which is made in a manner designed to lower the respect of the judiciary and destroy public confidence, it should not be ignored." However, the Bench found that in this case, despite the reprehensible nature of the remarks, it was not necessary to exercise its contempt jurisdiction.

The judgment elaborated on the constitutional framework, recording that the judiciary acts within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The power of judicial review, conferred by Articles 32 and 226, is one of the cornerstones of democracy. The Court stated: "Statutes are subject to judicial review to test their constitutionality as well as for judicial interpretation. Therefore, when the constitutional courts exercise their power of judicial review, they act within the framework of the Constitution."

Addressing the concern of hate speech, the Court observed: "Any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand. Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality."

The Court concluded by dismissing the writ petition and clarified that while it would not entertain the present petition, it remains steadfast that any attempt to foster communal hatred or indulge in hate speech should face strict legal consequences.

Also Read: Conviction Under Section 307 IPC And Arms Act Upheld | Injured Witness Testimony Commands Greater Evidentiary Value | No Cogent Reason To Interfere : Uttarakhand High Court

The Court made several key observations regarding the constitutional role of the judiciary, the discretionary nature of contempt powers, and the importance of combating hate speech.

• On the exercise of contempt powers: "The power to initiate contempt is discretionary in its unsheathed exercise. Every commission of contempt need not erupt in an indignant committal or levy of punishment, however deserving it may actually be."

• On the judiciary’s strength: "Courts and judges have shoulders broad enough and an implicit trust that the people would perceive and recognize when criticism or critique is biased, scandalous and ill-intentioned."

• On the relationship among the three wings of government: "It is the Constitution which imposes limits and restrictions on the powers vested in the three organs. The power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution on the judiciary."

• On public awareness: "We believe that the general public does know the relationship amongst the three wings of the Government and their different roles. They are aware of the function and the role of the judiciary, which is to judicially review the actions of the other branches and to evaluate whether the other branches are acting lawfully under the Constitution."

• On judicial independence and impartiality: "Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations."

• On hate speech: "Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly."

The Supreme Court dismissed the present writ petition. While the Court refrained from initiating criminal contempt proceedings, it issued a strong caution against communal hatred and hate speech, stating that such conduct must be "dealt with an iron hand."

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 647

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 466/2025

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar

[Read/Download order]