Supreme Court declines contempt action over political remarks but warns hate speech will be dealt with an iron hand

A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard a writ petition seeking initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Nishikant Dubey for remarks allegedly scandalizing the Court and the Chief Justice of India, and for directions to the Union of India to lodge an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and to issue advisories to Chief Secretaries in relation to speeches concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and its hearing before this Court.

The Court dismissed the petition and refrained from initiating contempt proceedings despite finding that the statements "tend to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India" and exhibited a "clear intent to impute motives to the Bench." The Bench emphasised that the power to punish for criminal contempt was discretionary and that judicial institutions were not to be shielded from legitimate criticism. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We, therefore, refrain from taking any action. This Court in, In Re S. Mulgaokar, 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." The Court further described the comments as "highly irresponsible" and warned that "any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulge in hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand."

Background

The petition by Vishal Tiwari under Articles 32 and 129 challenged public statements by respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey, which, the petitioner alleged, scandalised the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice by imputing motives and holding the Court responsible for communal unrest. The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings, an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and an advisory to Chief Secretaries to curb provocative political speeches linked to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 matters pending before this Court.

The Bench noted that it would not issue notice and proceeded to dispose the petition since the Waqf matters had been heard by the same judges. The Court examined the statements and found they "tend to scandalize and lower the authority" and displayed intent to impute motives by naming the Chief Justice as "responsible for all the civil wars happening in India" and asserting "in order to incite religious wars in this country, it is only and only the Supreme Court that is responsible." The Court observed that statutory exceptions in Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were prima facie not attracted and emphasised "There is no ‘civil war’ in India."

The judgment reiterated the tension between Article 19(1)(a) free speech protections and the scope of criminal contempt under clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and underscored that the Constitution confers and limits powers of the branches of the State. The Bench held that while criticism and objective critique were protected, "when criticism is an obvious distortion or a gross misstatement" it merited attention; nevertheless, the exercise of contempt powers remained discretionary. The petition was dismissed and pending applications stood disposed. The Court expressly cautioned that hate speech was criminal and would be dealt with sternly.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition No. 466/2025 (2025 INSC 647) Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]