Judiciary not immune from outspoken criticism: Kerala HC closes contempt case against magazine editor

Criticism against the judiciary, even if outspoken, cannot by itself lead to contempt of court proceedings, the Kerala High Court recently held while closing a contempt case against the editor of an online news magazine [Suo Motu v MR Ajayan]

A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar observed that people have the right to make fair and even outspoken comments about judiciary on matters of public interest.

The Court referred to the decision in Sheela Barse v Union of India to emphasise that the Supreme Court has time and again recognised the right of citizens to criticise shortcomings in the system and stressed that contempt of court jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases where contempt is established clearly without any reasonable doubt.

It added that courts should intervene when criticism is excessively offensive and not simply to protect its dignity or silence criticism.

"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 VR 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," the Court observed.

The contempt of court proceedings were initiated against MR Ajayan, the chief editor of an online news magazine 'Green Kerala News', over a news report concerning the children of judges studying in self-financing medical colleges.

A complaint was filed alleging that the report was baseless and scandalous.

It was also alleged that the report intended to portray the functioning of the judiciary adversely and to influence the hearing of a pending case before the High Court concerning admissions to self-financing medical colleges.

The Court, however, noted that during the pendency of the case, no order had been passed recording a prima facie satisfaction that the allegations against Ajayan constituted criminal contempt and that the online magazine did not have a wide circulation.

Accordingly, the Court closed the contempt proceedings.

Senior public prosecutor Jikku Jacob appeared for the state.

[Read Judgment]