Publicly scandalising a Judge through coordinated social media campaigns and orchestrated non-participation constitutes criminal contempt.

Following the rejection of a judicial recusal application on 20.04.2026, several respondents—primarily high-ranking political figures—and their associates initiated an organized social media campaign against the presiding judge

The material included public letters, press conferences, and truncated/edited videos of the Judge delivering an academic lecture in Varanasi, falsely framed as a political event

Respondent No. 18 (Arvind Kejriwal) published a letter on social media platform ‘X’ declaring the court biased and announcing his refusal to participate in further proceedings under the guise of "Satyagraha"

Similar declarations were made by Respondents No. 8 and 19

Various party functionaries posted insinuations regarding the Judge’s integrity and alleged political affiliations

Consequently, the Court took suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt while hearing the main revision petition

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as any act or publication that scandalizes, lowers the authority of the court, or obstructs the administration of justice

Precedent in Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, distinguishing between personal libel of a judge and contempt that causes public injury by shaking confidence in the judiciary

The "clear and present danger" to the administration of justice test from Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik

Principles from In re: Prashant Bhushan (2021), holding that malicious attacks on the judiciary as an institution must be dealt with firmly to protect the bedrock of rule of law

Court On Its Own Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma (2026) regarding scandalous YouTube content

The Court reasoned that the respondents' actions were not "fair criticism" but a "calculated campaign of vilification" intended to achieve a forum-hunt through intimidation

By circulating a truncated video of an academic lecture to falsely imply political patronage, the proposed contemnors deliberately manufactured a narrative of bias

The Court observed that Respondent No. 18’s public declaration that justice could not be expected and his refusal to participate in the trial traveled beyond personal choice, threatening to cause "anarchy" if other litigants followed such a path

The statements made by Saurabh Bhardwaj and Vinayy Mishra questioning the "relationship" between the Judge and a political party were found to be direct attacks on judicial independence

The Court analyzed the movement termed "Satyagraha" as a "cleverly clothed" attempt to derail the system, noting that truth should be taken to a higher court, not the "marketplace of public narratives"

The Court initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate Bench for the issuance of show-cause notices. Simultaneously, as a matter of judicial propriety and to ensure a fair trial—lest the contemnors claim further bias—the Court directed that the main revision petition (CRL.REV.P. 134/2026) be transferred to another Bench.