Vishal Tiwari vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 647 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 466/2025

VISHAL TIWARI ..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

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. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Normally, this Bench would not have heard this matter but as babita pandey Date: 2025.05.08 14:34:47 IST we are not inclined to issue notice and the Waqf matter 1 was heard Reason:

1 W.P. (C) Nos. 276/2025, 314/2025, 284/2025, 331/2025 & 269/2025. 1

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 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, 2 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.

4. 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

2 For short, “the Act”.

2 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.

5. 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.

6. We, therefore, refrain from taking any action. This Court in,

In Re S. Mulgaokar,3 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

3 (1978) 3 SCC 339.

3 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

4 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.

9. 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 fulfilment of its

constitutional duty.

10. 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,

5 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.

11. Recording the aforesaid, we dismiss the present writ petition.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

................CJI.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

MAY 05, 2025.

6