Latest news with #AjayShukla
The Wire
07-06-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Malay Mail
02-06-2025
- General
- Malay Mail
Are we intolerant of criticisms? — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 2 — On the same day (May 30) the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) announced that it would pursue contempt of court proceedings against senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) heard contempt proceedings against YouTuber Ajay Shukla for airing scandalous allegations against a senior Supreme Court judge. The SCI had taken suo moto cognisance of the issue the day before. Suo moto is Latin for 'on its own motion'. So, it was the SCI who initiated the contempt proceedings, not the Attorney-General of India. Shukla is the editor-in-chief of a digital channel. In a recent video, he allegedly made remarks about a Supreme Court judge. The SCI considered the remarks 'scandalous allegations widely published on YouTube [which] are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of judiciary.' During the contempt proceedings before a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices A.G. Masih and A.S. Chandurkar, the SCI observed that while the Indian Constitution guarantees free speech, it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah speaks during a press conference at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya on January 6, 2025. — Picture by Firdaus Latif A person cannot make contemptuous allegations defaming a judge of the Supreme Court under the guise of free speech. It is detrimental to the judiciary. Now, if contempt proceedings are taken against Shafee for his 'Nazi Germany' remarks, are we being intolerant of criticisms? What say you? * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Hindustan Times
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC orders take down of YouTube clip for remarks against SC judge
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered YouTube to remove a video posted on a channel containing 'scandalous allegations' against a senior judge and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the channel's editor Ajay Shukla, saying that freedom of speech cannot be used to damage the judiciary's reputation. A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai passed the order in suo motu contempt proceedings against a 150-second video uploaded by Shukla on May 24. The video, aired on his show 'The Principle', discussed a recent ruling by Justice Surya Kant in the case of Madhya Pradesh minister Kunwar Vijay Shah of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was asked to assist in the matter, told the court: 'This is something very serious. We are obliged that the court has taken suo motu cognisance of this.' The court said: 'The video clip has made scathing and scandalous allegations against one of the senior judges of this court. Such scandalous allegations widely published on YouTube is likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary.' Attorney General R Venkatramani was also asked to assist the court in passing further orders. Mehta argued that the video was not only scandalous but also defamatory and contemptuous, stating that such statements cannot enjoy legal protection as the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) comes with reasonable restrictions, including defamation and contempt of court. 'No doubt, our Constitution guarantees right to freedom of speech. At the same time, this right is subjected by reasonable restrictions,' the bench said. 'A person cannot be permitted to make allegations that are defamatory and also contemptuous in nature, which attempts to bring disrepute to the judiciary.' Under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, criminal contempt is defined as any publication (by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise) that either 'scandalises or tends to scandalise, lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.' The Supreme Court has previously initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings for posts against the judiciary. In a notable case, the court convicted advocate Prashant Bhushan in 2020 for tweets against then-Chief Justice SA Bobde, sentencing him to a fine of ₹1 or three months' simple imprisonment. That judgment was passed by a three-judge bench on August 31, 2020, which included the present CJI Gavai. The court had then said: 'Free speech is essential to democracy can also not be disputed, but it cannot denigrate one of the institutions of the democracy... the faith of the citizens of the country in the institution of justice is the foundation for rule of law which is an essential factor in the democratic set up.'
Indian Express
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Supreme Court initiates contempt against YouTuber for defamatory remarks on judge
The Supreme Court on Friday initiated suo motu criminal contempt of court proceedings against a YouTuber for alleged 'scandalous' remarks against a senior judge of the top court. A three-judge bench, presided by CJI B R Gavai and also comprising Justices A G Masih and A S Chandrukar, also directed that the video by YouTuber Ajay Shukla be taken down forthwith. The bench said that in the video clip, Ajay Shukla, editor in chief of digital channel, Varprad Media Pvt Ltd, 'has made scathing and scandalous observations on some of the senior judges of this court.' 'Such scandalous allegations widely published on YouTube, are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary,' the bench said. 'The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech. At the same time, the right is subjected to reasonable restrictions,' the bench said, adding, 'a person cannot be permitted to make allegations which are in the nature of defaming a judge of this court and also of contemptuous nature which attempts to bring disrepute to the institution of judiciary.' The bench then directed the Registry to register the present proceedings as a suo motu contempt and asked Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court in the matter. The court, which is currently on partial working days, will hear the matter after it resumes full working mode.
United News of India
30-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC cracks down on YouTuber for 'scandalous' remarks against senior Judge
New Delhi, May 30 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday ordered Chandigarh based journalist Ajay Shukla and his YouTube channel The Principle run by Varprad Media India Private Limited to immediately take down a video that made "scandalous allegations" against a senior judge of the apex judiciary. The court also initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla. A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and Atul S. Chandurkar, passed an interim order restraining further circulation of the contentious video and directed that the matter be registered as a contempt case. 'Mr. Shukla in the said video clip has made scandalous observations about one of the senior judges of this court. Such allegations, widely published on YouTube, are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of the judiciary,' the court stated. The bench directed the Supreme Court registry to register the case titled 'In Re: Scandalous Remarks Made by Mr. Ajay Shukla, Editor-in-Chief, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., a Digital Channel.' It also requested the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the proceedings. 'We direct the YouTube channel to stop publication of the video and to forthwith take down the video,' the court ordered. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta welcomed the decision, remarking, 'It is very serious. Grateful suo motu was taken.' While acknowledging the constitutional right to free speech, the Court emphasised that it does not extend to making baseless, defamatory, or contemptuous statements against the judiciary. 'No doubt, the Constitution guarantees free speech and expression. However, such a right is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be misused to make defamatory allegations against a judge or content that is contemptuous in nature,' the Bench added. The case marks a rare but decisive step by the Supreme Court to reinforce the sanctity of the judiciary amid growing concerns over irresponsible digital content targeting public institutions. UNI SNG SSP
