The Allahabad High Court has cautioned the public against using abusive language against courts on social media, holding that such remarks fall outside the scope of fair criticism and could attract action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court made the observation while dealing with a criminal contempt reference against an advocate, though it ultimately dropped the proceedings after accepting his unconditional apology.
A division bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed that virtual abuses directed at superior courts cannot be treated as fair comment or informed criticism of judicial decisions. The bench said that such statements clearly cross the limits of permissible free speech and may expose the person concerned to penalties under the court’s contempt jurisdiction.
“We do wish to remind the public to be cautious in future, because words that are most unambiguously contumacious, circulate on the social media which as and when taken cognisance of in our contempt jurisdiction, may expose the contemnor to penalties of the law, which the court may not hesitate to impose,” the bench stated.
The court emphasised that abusive posts against superior courts “by no means can fall within the fold of fair comment or the informed criticism of a judgment.”
The observations came in a criminal contempt reference under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act concerning the conduct of advocate Hari Narayan Pandey in a district court in Basti.
On the merits, the bench noted that the advocate appeared before the court and did not attempt to justify his conduct. He submitted that he had been under severe personal distress on the day of the incident. The court also took into account his professional record, describing him as a well-groomed member of the Bar who was aware of legal norms and courtroom etiquette.
In its order dated February 24, the High Court dropped the contempt proceedings, noting that the advocate had a long standing practice with no prior instance of contumacious conduct and had tendered an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity. The court recorded that the apology reflected “genuine remorse and not merely a contrivance to escape the consequences of contempt.”
While granting relief in the individual case, the bench reiterated that social media users must exercise restraint and remain within the bounds of lawful and informed criticism when commenting on judicial proceedings.
