Article 2: Measure for measure
Why in news: Recent remarks by Justice Surya Kant and actions of the Supreme Court of India have triggered concerns over judicial intolerance toward criticism, transparency demands, RTI activism, and external scrutiny by academics, lawyers, and journalists.
Key Details
- The judiciary struggles to balance contempt powers with constitutionally protected criticism and free speech.
- Recent remarks describing some activists and lawyers as “parasites” and “cockroaches” raised concerns over judicial sensitivity to criticism.
- The Court’s handling of the NCERT textbook controversy and Ali Khan Mahmudabad case drew criticism for appearing restrictive toward dissent.
- Concerns emerged over the judiciary acting as both aggrieved party and adjudicator, especially in transparency-related matters.
- Former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud had earlier emphasized that courts should not react defensively to criticism as judges exercise public power.
Contempt Powers and Free Speech
- Courts possess the authority to punish for contempt of court to preserve judicial dignity and authority.
- However, distinguishing between contemptuous attacks and constitutionally protected criticism has often remained inconsistent.
- Journalists, lawyers, activists, and scholars frequently face uncertainty over the limits of permissible criticism.
- The judiciary has struggled to clearly separate fair criticism, defamatory remarks, and speech that genuinely obstructs justice.
- This inconsistency raises concerns regarding the balance between judicial accountability and freedom of expression.
Challenges Faced by the Judiciary
- The judiciary increasingly faces misinformation campaigns, political pressure, abusive online discourse, and declining public trust.
- Judges possess limited institutional mechanisms to counter such attacks effectively.
- Oral remarks made during hearings should not automatically be treated as binding legal doctrine.
- Nevertheless, strong rhetorical observations by judges can shape public perceptions about judicial impartiality.
- Recent comments by the Bench have created an impression of growing intolerance toward external scrutiny.
Controversial Remarks and Judicial Conduct
- During a hearing on judicial elevation, CJI Surya Kant referred to some legal actors as “parasites” and RTI-based activists as “cockroaches.”
- Although later clarified as remarks against persons with bogus degrees, such language was widely viewed as inappropriate for the office of the CJI.
- The controversy followed the NCERT textbook dispute, where academics involved in curriculum drafting faced strong judicial criticism.
- Critics argued that the Court appeared both an aggrieved party and an arbiter, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
- These developments intensified debates over judicial restraint and institutional dignity.
Concerns Regarding Transparency and Due Process
- In the Ali Khan Mahmudabad matter, the Court granted protection from coercive action but simultaneously imposed a gag order.
- The Bench also urged the state not to prosecute him as a concession, appearing to regulate public conduct beyond determining legality.
- Remarks made outside formal contempt proceedings can create a chilling effect without procedural safeguards.
- Similar concerns arose when RTI-based judicial accountability efforts were criticised despite the RTI Act being a legitimate legal instrument.
- Questions also emerged over judicial transparency when the Supreme Court Registry denied information regarding complaints against judges.
Need for Judicial Openness and Accountability
- A journalist seeking judicial complaint data was accused of conducting a “fishing and roving inquiry” despite contrary Law Ministry disclosures.
- Such responses raised concerns about the judiciary appearing to defend its own institutional position.
- Former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud had emphasized that judges are public authorities exercising state power.
- He argued that courts should not react defensively to every instance of criticism.
- The recent controversies are viewed by many as reversing earlier efforts to foster greater openness between the judiciary, media, academia, and the legal community.
Conclusion
An independent judiciary must protect both institutional dignity and democratic accountability. Excessive sensitivity toward criticism risks creating a chilling effect on free speech, academic inquiry, journalism, and legal activism. Courts command legitimacy not through intolerance of scrutiny, but through transparency, restraint, and adherence to constitutional principles, including due process and freedom of expression.