Vishal Tiwari vs. Union Of India

NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 647
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 466/2025

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.
Signature Not Verified
2.
Normally, this Bench would not have heard this matter but as
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.05.08
14:34:47 IST
Reason:
1
we are not inclined to issue notice and the Waqf matter was heard
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
2
clause (c) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 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,
3
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
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