×

High Court Issues Warning Against Disrespectful Comments on Judiciary

The Allahabad High Court has issued a warning regarding the use of derogatory language against the judiciary on social media. The court stated that such comments are beyond fair criticism and could lead to legal action under contempt laws. This warning was made in relation to a case involving an advocate's conduct in a district court. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining respect for judicial institutions and clarified that disparaging remarks do not constitute legitimate criticism. The advocate involved has since apologized, which was accepted by the court. Read on to learn more about the implications of this ruling.
 

Judicial Warning on Social Media Conduct

The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern warning to individuals using derogatory language against the judiciary on social media, stating that such remarks fall outside the realm of fair criticism. The bench, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, emphasized that if the court takes cognizance of such posts, stringent legal action will follow under contempt laws.


The court remarked, “We would like to remind individuals to exercise caution in the future, as words expressed on social media that are clearly contemptuous can lead to legal repercussions whenever they are acknowledged under contempt jurisdiction.” It further noted that using such language on social media exceeds the boundaries of freedom of expression.


This statement was made in the context of a criminal contempt case under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, concerning the conduct of advocate Hari Narayan Pandey in a district court in Basti.


The court clarified that derogatory remarks about high courts do not qualify as legitimate commentary or criticism of judicial decisions. It observed that the individual making the disparaging comments failed to justify their words and admitted to being extremely distressed at the time of the incident. Concluding the case against the advocate, the court noted in its ruling on February 24 that the advocate, who has been in the legal profession for a considerable time, had unconditionally apologized, which was accepted by the subordinate court judge.