VISHAL TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) Judicial pronouncements result in an order or a decision which may aggrieve a party or sometimes a sec. 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 Sec. 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.