The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:

“On going through the objectionable statement, what we find is that the respondent, in the course of the channel discussion, stated that certain comments were made by the learned Single Judge, and it was for the purpose of attracting media attention and becoming popular… we are of the considered opinion that the stray remarks made by the respondent are best left ignored… It is the privileged right of the Indian citizen to believe what he considers to be true and to speak out his mind, though not, perhaps, always in the best of taste; and speak perhaps, with greater courage than care for exactitude. Judiciary is not exempt from such criticism. Judicial institutions are, and should be made, of stronger stuff intended to endure and thrive even in such a hardy climate.”

The Court was considering a criminal contempt case initiated by a party-in-person. According to him, the respondent participated in a channel discussion on Reporter TV where she made the remarks against a Single Judge of the High Court.

He also pointed out that the same got published on Reporter TV's YouTube channel with the heading that translates to “Court is making unnecessary comments to attract media attention”. He further alleged that the respondent's remarks were intended to undermine the judiciary.

He had obtained a sanction order from the Advocate General, who had opined that there was prima facie contempt committed by the respondent.

After hearing the petitioner, the Bench referred to various decisions rendered by the Apex Court and was of the view that frequent invocation of contempt jurisdiction, may in fact diminish the dignity of the court.

It reiterated that judiciary is not free from criticism and citizens have the privileged right to express opinions:

“Being the guardian of the rights of the people, the Court must exercise its contempt jurisdiction with scrupulous care and only where the case is clear and established beyond reasonable doubt. It is the privileged right of every Indian citizen to hold opinions that he believes to be true and to express those opinions, even if they are not always articulated in the best of taste and are spoken with greater courage than precision. The judiciary is not immune from criticism. Judicial institutions are expected to possess the strength and resilience to withstand fair, even if outspoken, criticism and to continue to command public confidence through the quality of their judgments, their independence, and their conduct. As observed by V.R.Krishna Iyer J., the plea is not for judicial pachydermy, but for dignified detachment which ignores ill-informed criticism in its tolerant stride, but strikes when offensive excesses are established.”

It thus dismissed the contempt petition.

Case No: Cont.Cas.(Crl.) No. 7 of 2026

Case Title: N. Prakash v. Adv. Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 396

Counsel for the respondent: Gikku Jacob – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment