It is certainly in the fitness of things that while displaying magnanimity, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition No. 466/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 647 that was pronounced as recently as on 05 May, 2025 has been most upright in holding that Courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under ludicrous statements.

In the same vein, the Apex Court has strongly criticized BJP MP Nishikant Dubey for his most atrocious remarks against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India – Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjiv Khanna over the manner of handling of the case on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. We thus see that the top court has made it indubitably clear that hate speech cannot be tolerated and any attempt to cause humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and attempt to spread communal hatred must be dealt with iron hand.

By any reckoning, it must be said that the Apex Court has most brilliantly laid the background of this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment at the very outset by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 stating precisely that, This petition under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India seeks initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey, for having made deliberate and scandalizing remarks against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India; for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to lodge a First Information Report under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and for a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 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 this Court.

For sake of clarity, we observe that the Bench deems it duly appropriate to specify in para 2 of this robust judgment that:
Normally, this Bench would not have heard this matter but as we are not inclined to issue notice and the Waqf matter (W.P. (C) Nos. 276/2025, 314/2025, 284/2025, 331/2025 & 269/2025) was heard by the two of us, we would dispose of the writ petition with some observations and, accordingly, we have proceeded to consider the issue.

It is worth noting that the Bench deems it fit to point out in para 3 stating that:
Judicial pronouncements result in an order or a decision which may aggrieve a party or sometimes a section of the public. Critical analysis and objective criticism of an order’s reasoning or even its outcome is protected under the fundamental right to free speech and expression under clause (a) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. The power of criminal contempt, however, is exercised by courts when publication by words, spoken or written, by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, in terms of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (For short, the Act) is with the intent to scandalize or lower the authority of the courts; or tends to scandalize or lower such authority; prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings; or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. Exercise of the power of contempt, nevertheless, is discretionary.

Be it noted, the Bench then hastens to add in para 4 propounding that:
We have examined the contents of the assertions made by respondent no. 4, which no doubt tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, if not interfere or tend to interfere with the judicial proceedings pending before this Court, and have the tendency to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice. The statements made reflect the clear intent to impute motives to the Bench itself by naming the Chief Justice of India as responsible for all the civil wars happening in India and in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act carve out exceptions which, prima facie, are not attracted. There is no ‘civil war’ in India.

Most damningly, the Bench pulls back no punches to state clearly, cogently and convincingly in para 5 of this composed judgment holding that:
In our opinion, the comments were highly irresponsible and reflect a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court. This apart, the statements show ignorance about the role of the constitutional courts and the duties and obligations bestowed on them under the Constitution.

At the same time, we are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. We do not believe that the confidence in and credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such absurd statements, though it can be said without the shadow of doubt that there is a desire and deliberate attempt to do so.

Most remarkably, the Bench then deems it appropriate to expound in para 6 of this notable judgment underscoring that:
We, therefore, refrain from taking any action. This Court in, In Re S. Mulgaokar, (1978) 3 SCC 339 observed that the judiciary is not immune from criticism, but 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 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. It is so because 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. Courts believe in values like free press, fair trial, judicial fearlessness and community confidence. Thus, courts need not protect their verdicts and decisions by taking recourse to the power of contempt. Surely, 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.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 7 of this rational judgment that:
Each branch of the State in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive or the judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts within the framework of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us. 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. 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.

It would be instructive to note that the Bench notes in para 8 that:
In the course of dispensation of justice, courts draw inspiration from consecrated principles. The judiciary, as an institution, is accountable to the people through various mechanisms. Arguments take place in open court. Decisions and judgments are reasoned. Judicial procedure ensures transparency and accountability. Judgments are put to scrutiny and critique. Decisions are debated and if required, corrected by exercise of right of appeal, review, in curative jurisdiction and by reference to a larger bench. The judiciary’s legitimacy and credibility are rooted in public trust and are maintained through fair, impartial and transparent decision-making.

Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 9 of this progressive judgment postulating that:
To deny the power of judicial review to the courts would be to rewrite and negate the Constitution, as the power of judicial review is one of the cornerstones of democracy. This power is conferred in express terms by Articles 32 and 226 by the framers of the Constitution and hinges on the system of checks and balances.

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. Judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles and not in keeping with political, religious or community considerations. When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court’s consideration of such a prayer is the fulfillment of its constitutional duty.

Most forthrightly, the Bench makes it absolutely clear in para 10 of this pragmatic judgment observing that:
While we are not entertaining the present writ petition, we make it clear that 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. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.

Adding more to it, the Bench then notes in para 11 directing that:
Recording the aforesaid, we dismiss the present writ petition.

Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by holding in para 12 that, Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

In conclusion, it is high time and instead of questioning Supreme Court, such MPs like Nishikant Dubey should instead focus on why Parliament has failed to create in last nearly 80 years multiple High Court Benches in big states like Rajasthan which is biggest areawise yet one Bench only at Jaipur and Uttar Pradesh which is the most populated State of India with maximum pending cases among all the States in India and why still only one High Court Bench at Lucknow created 77 years ago in 1948 so near to Allahabad High Court in Eastern UP only even though West UP owes for majority of pending cases are from West UP for which Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by Centre itself about 50 years ago recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench yet not created till date nor attached litigants of West UP with Lucknow which falls much earlier and like a donkey made to travel till Allahabad and poorest litigants have to travel whole night and nearly a day all the way till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest injustice, deepest burial of justice and worst mockery of poorest litigants who are worst hit!

The 230th Report of Law Commission of India appointed by Centre itself about 16 years ago recommended creation of more High Court Benches in 2009 yet not implemented and still MPs like Nishikant question Supreme Court for encroaching into Parliament’s domain! If Parliament does it work properly then why will Supreme Court ever interfere? Leaders must ponder!

One is totally clueless as to why Centre and concerned States are not taking meaningful and decisive steps to create more High Court Benches even though the 230th Report of Law Commission of India in 2009 most strongly advocated for creation of more High Court Benches in States and yet only few elite States like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam have multiple High Court Benches? No wonder, in the India Justice Report 2025 that was released on April 14, 2025, we see that States like Karnataka with population of just 6 crore having multiple High Court Benches with Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts only created in 2008 rank among the best States right on top and West UP with 30 districts and more than 10 crore people not even a single Bench and UP with more than 25 crore population which is more than Pakistan has just one Bench and it is a no-brainer that it has been listed in worst category just like lawless Bihar and Rajasthan among others!

Five south states rank among top performers as for just 3.5 crore people of Telangana, separate High Court created on June 2, 2014 and so also for Andhra Pradesh with just 4 crore population and we know that Andhra Pradesh Assembly just recently approved a High Court Bench in Kurnool but for Punjab and Haryana there is no separate High Court for both the States and so no wonder it figures in middle performer category states! Still why Parliament never ensures that big States have multiple High Court Benches?

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh