Personal remarks or insults against judges can’t constitute contempt: Madras HC

CHENNAI: Personal remarks or insults against a judge cannot constitute contempt of court, held the Madras High Court, adding that courts must be open to criticism to build a healthy institution to affirm public faith in the judiciary.

The division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam said this while dismissing the contempt petition filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankarr against DMK organising secretary RS Bharathi for his alleged criticism of Justice N Anand Venkatesh.

Reiterating Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s statement that the very foundation of the justice delivery system was transparent and criticisms build the institution, the bench said, "Judiciary alone cannot be an opaque institution, judges cannot hide behind the curtains. Institutions involved in the delivery of justice must be the most transparent institution."

The contempt jurisdiction was designed to protect the institution, not the judges in their personal capacity; judges are not the institution, they may come and go, but the institution survives, held the bench.

The people would not remain silent if the vast powers conferred on judges was not exercised properly, the bench said, adding that judges cannot demand respect from the people through demonstration of contempt power.

Judges’ conduct and judgments were the answers to the criticism, and it should be left to the people to judge the judges, they said.

The bench observed that Bharathi, being a reputed person, could have avoided the statement criticising the judge's order.

Even while holding that the statement he made stood on the borderline, the bench said it did not find any strong intentions behind it nor did it amount to scandalisation of judicial process or initiation of criminal contempt under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

As Justice Anand Venkatesh, towards whom the criticism was allegedly directed, refused to initiate the criminal contempt, there was no maintainability in the petition, said the bench. In the absence of consent, a petition moved by a person for contempt could only be treated as information. Based on that, the court might or might not initiate suo motu proceedings, the bench added.

Shankar filed criminal contempt against Bharathi for his comments that Justice Venkatesh was adopting a 'pick and choose policy' in initiating the suo motu proceedings against ministers, which attributed malafide intentions to the judge. He added that the comments damaged the credibility of the judiciary in the eyes of the public and sought strict action against Bharathi under the Contempt of Courts Act.

However, the then AG R Shunmugasundaram refused to grant consent to initiate the contempt proceedings against Bharathi.

Appearing for Shankar, senior counsel V Raghavachari referred to section 2 (c) of the Act and contended that the statement was scandalous and added that Bharathi was consistently speaking ill of the judiciary and the court.

Despite making a defamatory remark against a judge, there was not a word of apology from him, said the counsel, and placed several judgments that held that the statements personally targeting a judge constituted contempt proceedings.

However, the bench rejected the submissions and quoted the words of the architect of Indian Constitution, BR Ambedkar, "I'm bound to obey the judgement but not bound to respect it," and emphasised that judges were open to criticism.