Measure for Measure: On Indian Courts and Criticism

While it is the courts’ prerogative to punish contempt, how well they have separated contempt attacks from constitutionally protected criticism, particularly from journalists, lawyers, activists, and scholars, has varied widely. This is because the judiciary has been unable to draw consistent lines between fair and excessive criticism, politically motivated and defamatory comments and speech that defeats justice. The judiciary faces misinformation, political pressures, abusive online discourse and declining public trust, and the ways in which judges can respond to these attacks are limited. Rhetorical excess in oral statements is also not to be confused with legal doctrine. However, recent comments by the Bench have given the impression that the judiciary is increasingly intolerant of external scrutiny. Last week, while hearing a lawyer’s petition for not being promoted to a higher rank, CJI Surya Kant described certain actors in the legal ecosystem as “parasites” and certain young lawyers involved in RTI-based activism as “cockroaches”. Although he later said the remarks were aimed at people entering the profession with fake degrees rather than critics of the judiciary, such language is inappropriate for the CJI. The tenor follows the NCERT textbook dispute, with the Supreme Court focusing its apparent anger on three academics involved in drafting the chapter, effectively barring them from working on the public school curriculum without a hearing. The lawsuit raised concerns that the court is the victim and the arbitrator. In the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case, the court granted him immunity from coercive measures but also imposed a gag order. Then, in a show of willingness to discipline norms of public behavior rather than determine legality, he invited the state to dismiss his prosecution as a concession.

When the CJI’s comments of this nature appear outside of formal contempt proceedings, they are chilling because they amount to institutional condemnation without due process guarantees. Comments on using the RTI Act as a basis for activism have a similar effect, beyond the Act being a legitimate tool. Recently, when a journalist (with a legal background) sought data on complaints against a particular judge, the Supreme Court registry denied the existence of such information. When a reporter presented a Justice Department statement to the contrary, the Registry’s attorney called the investigation “fishing and trolling” — a moving rod that again had little concern for legality while raising questions for the court arguing its own case. Former CJI DY Chandrachud said judges are public officers exercising state power and courts should not react defensively to every line of criticism. This approach improved how the bar, press, and academia experienced the courts. Recent comments have turned back the clock.

Published – 21 May 2026 0:10 AM IST