Judges Can't Defend Themselves Publicly, Criticism Must Be Responsible Backed By Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that criticism aimed at judges must be responsible and backed by cogent evidence as they cannot defend themselves publicly when faced with attacks, especially on a social media platform.A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that any criticism must be well founded, specially because a judge has no means to justify his actions in public. “If one has to attack a Judicial Officer on his integrity or competence, it must be done with cogent evidence; it cannot be made lightly. We must remember that such an attack, if made without any basis, undermines the authority of the Judicial Officer and interferes with dispensation of justice by him/her without fear or favour,” the Court said. It added that when a Judicial Officer dispenses justice, he or she is bound to make mistakes as no judge is or can be expected to be 100% correct all the time. “…it is for this reason that we have a hierarchy of courts, where a litigant can approach the higher court if he/she is dissatisfied by the verdict. In such remedy, may be the order is set aside, however, this also does not mean that the judicial officer passing the original order did not act with integrity or was incompetent,” the Bench said.The Court made the observations while initiating criminal contempt action against an individual, who operated a YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, for allegedly scandalising the judiciary through videos and thumbnails targeting sitting judicial officers. However, the Court accepted the unconditional apologies tendered by two advocates featured in the videos.This was after suo motu criminal contempt cases were registered from references made by judicial officers regarding objectionable content uploaded on a YouTube channel. The content included interviews of advocates and thumbnails naming two judges while suggesting that litigants should “give up hope for justice” if their cases were before such courts. The Court noted that while campaigning for reforms such as audio-video recording of court proceedings is permissible, the manner in which two judges were targeted appeared intended to create distrust and sensationalism rather than promote reform. “The intent of respondent no. 2 is, therefore, writ large of only scandalising and lowering the image of these Judicial Officers in the general public, thereby lowering the authority of the Court. It is not to generate a healthy debate but to scandalize the Court. It is not bona fide but is mala fide to bring to disrepute the judicial system and to lower the authority of the courts,” the Court said. It held that the individual “pronounced his verdict” against the concerned Judicial Officers without any basis and undermined their authority.The Court also noted that the individual had published videos with scandalous banners targeting specific judges and using derogatory language against the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large. “The acts attributed to the respondent no.2 speak for themselves and it is a case of res ipsa loquitur. There can be no justification for the same. It is certainly not protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,” the Court said. Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA ADV. AND ORS and other connected matterCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 404Click here to read order

Judges Can't Defend Themselves Publicly, Criticism Must Be Responsible Backed By Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Judges Can't Defend Themselves Publicly, Criticism Must Be Responsible Backed By Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers