Is criticizing judges legal in India? Yes, within limits: the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 protects fair criticism of a finally decided case and, since 2006, allows truth as a defence when it’s bona fide and in the public interest, but “scandalising” the court or lowering its authority is criminal contempt, and the line between sharp criticism and contempt is drawn by the very judges being criticised. Prashant Bhushan’s 2020 conviction over two tweets shows how contested that line is. This is general information, not legal advice.
Where the Line Falls
- Protected: fair, reasonable comment on the merits of a case that has been heard and finally decided
- Punishable: publication that scandalises, or tends to scandalise, or lowers the authority of any court
- Defence: truth, but only if in the public interest and raised in good faith
- Judge as a person: personal attacks are treated differently from criticism of a judgment
- Consequence: contempt proceedings, which in the Bhushan case ended with a token fine of ₹1
What the Act Says
The wording of criminal contempt is broad.
- Section 2(c)(i) allows courts to penalise anyone who publishes content that “scandalises or tends to scandalise” the judiciary or lowers its authority, according to Medianama
- The expression “scandalising the court” has not been defined, according to Drishti IAS
- The Act specifically exempts fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings and fair criticism of the judiciary, according to Wikipedia
The Fair Criticism Exception
Section 5 is the shield.
- Section 5 says “fair criticism” or “fair comment” on the merits of a final decision does not constitute contempt, according to Legal Service India
- The judgement of what is fair is, however, left to the judges’ opinion, according to the same source and EPW
- A 1978 decision held that fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment, which is a public document or the public act of a judge, isn’t contempt, and that honest criticism should be encouraged because nobody, including judges, claims infallibility, according to Legal Service India
- The same piece adds that saying a decision is rubbish and should be thrown in the dustbin can’t be considered fair criticism
Truth as a Defence
Parliament changed this in 2006.
- Before 2006, even truth could not be used as a defence, according to EPW and Wikipedia
- The 2006 amendment added Section 13(b), allowing truth as a defence, according to Wikipedia
- It applies only if the court is satisfied that the defence is in the public interest and that the request to invoke it is bona fide, according to the Casemine text of the Bhushan judgment
- What counts as public interest is again left to the judge’s discretion, according to EPW
The Prashant Bhushan Case
It’s the leading modern example.
- On 14 August 2020, the Supreme Court found Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) for two tweets, according to the Bar Human Rights Committee and Casemine
- One tweet criticised the Supreme Court and the last four Chief Justices over their role in what he described as the destruction of democracy, according to the BHRC
- The Court fined him ₹1 and rejected his defence under Section 13, according to Medianama
- The Drishti IAS commentary says the Court also held that fair criticism of judges made in good faith in the public interest is not contempt, but that good faith isn’t defined in the Act, and it points out that personal criticism of a judge was held not to be fair criticism in a 2001 Bhushan matter
- The BHRC called on the Government and Parliament to abolish the statutory offence of criminal contempt by scandalising, as a violation of freedom of expression
Other Recent Cases
Social media has become the main arena.
- Comedian Kunal Kamra faced contempt proceedings after a tweet calling the Supreme Court the “Supreme Joke of India,” according to Medianama
- In May 2025, the Supreme Court took action against journalist Ajay Shukla over a YouTube video accusing a judge of misconduct, according to the same source
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered “judge bashing” social media content to be removed, according to Medianama
- Bhatt & Joshi notes that some proceedings were eventually withdrawn but showed the potential for contempt liability to reach social media criticism
The Case for the Law
Courts and supporters give reasons.
- Scandalising judges undermines the independence of the judiciary, according to a 1995 decision listed in the Casemine summary
- A criticism that is measured is allowed, but scurrilous attacks are not, according to the Scribd study notes
- Supporters argue that public confidence in courts has to be protected to keep the system working
The Case Against It
Critics see problems.
- The test relies on the court’s own view of what lowers its authority, which EPW describes as a determination made by the very judges in question
- The BHRC argues that the offence violates the fundamental right to freedom of expression and legitimate criticism
- Drishti IAS says the Bhushan judgment gives an impression that the Court treated the tweets as an occasion to make clear that it will not tolerate criticism
- Justice Suresh Kumar, as reported by Medianama in June 2025, called for a law on online criticism of the judiciary, which shows the debate is live inside the courts too
Criticism Versus Defamation of a Judge
They’re not the same thing.
- The Supreme Court has clarified that defaming a judge is different from committing contempt of court, according to EPW’s summary
- A judge who is personally defamed can pursue ordinary remedies, while contempt protects the court’s authority
- Attacking a judge’s motives or integrity, with no basis, is where contempt risk rises
How Contempt Proceedings Work
The procedure has safeguards.
- The Act provides a procedure for trying contempt, including bench requirements and a fair hearing, according to the Scribd notes citing Sections 14 to 18
- For contempt outside the face of the court, the Act involves the Attorney General’s consent under Section 15, as I understand it, though these sources only cite the section numbers
- Both civil and criminal contempt carry the same punishment under the Act, according to Wikipedia, and as I understand it that’s simple imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both
What’s Safe to Say
A few guidelines follow.
- Criticise the reasoning of a decided case, its effect and its consequences, citing specifics
- Avoid attributing corrupt motives to a judge without evidence
- Avoid insults, abuse and sweeping claims that the court is a sham
- Don’t comment on a pending case in a way that could prejudice it, because that’s a separate risk under the Act, which the sources here don’t cover in detail
For Journalists and Lawyers
The stakes are higher.
- Fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings is expressly exempt, according to Wikipedia
- Lawyers are officers of the court, and the Court may take a stricter view of their language, though that’s an observation these sources don’t develop
- Document the factual basis for any claim you publish, since truth must be backed by evidence to qualify under Section 13
If You Receive a Notice
A calm response helps.
- Take legal advice immediately
- Read the notice to see which publication is complained of
- Consider whether you can show the comment was fair and made in good faith, or that truth and public interest apply
- Consider whether an unconditional apology is appropriate, which courts sometimes accept, though that’s a strategic decision for you and your lawyer
- Preserve copies of what you published
Where the Sources Disagree
A few things aren’t settled.
- What counts as “scandalising,” which the Act doesn’t define
- How far the 2006 truth defence helps in practice, given the Bhushan result
- Whether the offence should survive, with the BHRC and others urging abolition
- Several are commentary pieces, so read the Act and the judgment
FAQs
Q1. Is criticizing judges legal in India?
Yes, within limits. Fair criticism of decided cases is protected, but scandalising or lowering the authority of a court is criminal contempt.
Q2. What is the defence of truth in contempt cases?
Section 13(b) allows truth if it’s in the public interest and invoked in good faith, but courts decide what that means.
Q3. What happened in the Prashant Bhushan case?
He was found guilty of criminal contempt in August 2020 over two tweets and fined ₹1, after the Court rejected his Section 13 defence.
Q4. Can I criticise a judgment on social media?
Fair comment on the merits of a decided case is allowed, but insults or baseless accusations against judges risk contempt proceedings.
