'Virtual Abuses On Social Media Hurled At Superior Courts' Not Fair Comment: Allahabad High Court Warns Netizens Of Strict Contempt Action
Deekshitha Sharmile
The Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava accepted an advocate’s unconditional apology for uttering disparaging remarks in open court that were found to scandalise the court and interfere with judicial proceedings and discharged the contempt notice against him. While closing the matter, the Bench also cautioned that social media posts abusing the judiciary beyond fair comment or informed criticism may, if taken cognisance of in contempt jurisdiction, invite strict legal consequences.
These proceedings arose from a reference made by a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against an advocate for alleged criminal contempt. The incident occurred on 22 January 2025 during the hearing of a temporary injunction application in a civil suit, where the advocate was representing one of the parties. The reference alleged that the words spoken in open court amounted to contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
The Registry placed the matter before the Chief Justice, who directed it to be listed before the appropriate bench having criminal contempt jurisdiction. Notices were issued, and the advocate filed affidavits tendering unconditional apology. The contemnor later appeared before the concerned judicial officer at Raebareli to submit a written apology, which was accepted in part. The Civil Judge noted that while the apology was accepted for remarks directed at him, disparaging words had also been spoken against the District Judge and the High Court, which he could not condone. The matter was then heard by the Division Bench on the basis of pleadings, affidavits, and the report submitted by the judicial officer.
The Court observed that the words spoken by the contemnor clearly fell within the definition of contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act. It recorded: “These words certainly scandalize and lower the authority of the Court within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the Act of 1971.”
The Bench further stated: “Suffice it to say that those words were entirely unrelated to the proceedings of the Court and were a calculated attempt to browbeat the Court into passing an order that was not the free dictate of the learned Judge's conscience.”
On the issue of reproducing the words, the Court noted: “The reason why we do not reproduce the obnoxious words employed by the contemnor is that by making them part of our order we would be echoing disrespect shown to the Court and the judiciary as a whole.”
Regarding the apology, the Court recorded: “He has tendered unconditional apology at the earliest, which the learned Civil Judge accepted, of course, for himself. The learned Civil Judge has also remarked that he found the apology to be the expression of remorse, which led him to accept it.”
The Court also observed the contemnor’s demeanor: “We are convinced that he is a well-groomed member of the Bar, aware of the niceties of the law and etiquette in Court. Therefore, the words that he spoke in Court and landed himself in contempt proceedings, do seem to be the result of something extraneous, that affected his conduct in Court.”
The Bench noted the caution raised by counsel for the High Court: “Mr. Mehrotra, appearing for the High Court, had some words of caution for us as he said that commission of criminal contempt of Court has become the order of the day.”
It further recorded: “There are virtual abuses on media hurled at superior Courts, which are, by no means, within the fold of the defence, called fair comment or the informed criticism of a judgment.”
The Court remarked: “There are virtual abuses on media hurled at superior Courts, which are, by no means, within the fold of the defence, called fair comment or the informed criticism of a judgment. This is not the subject matter of the present contempt reference, but we do wish to remind the public to be cautious in future, because words that are most unambiguously contumacious, circulate on the social media, which, as and when, taken cognizance of in our contempt jurisdiction, may expose the contemnor to penalties of the law, which the Court may not hesitate to impose.”
The Court directed: “So far as the present contempt matter is concerned, we accept the contemnor's apology and discharge the notice issued to him. This contempt matter is consigned to record.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Pathak, Advocate assisted by Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate
Case Title: In Re Versus Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate
Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:40686-DB
Case Number: Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
