Contempt Brews Dangerously On WhatsApp Chats
By Gajanan Khergamker
The Indian legal ecosystem, long revered for its institutional resilience and constitutional balance, now finds itself at a curious inflection point — not in the courtroom but across WhatsApp forwards, Telegram groups, and viral reels. A worrying trend has emerged: the public flaying and vilification of High Court rulings that fail to align with popular sentiment or political leaning. While critique is constitutionally sanctioned, contempt remains legally punishable — a distinction many social media warriors, public influencers and even professionals seem to conveniently blur.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, but it is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interest of contempt of court, public order, decency, morality, and more. Hence, when a High Court delivers an unfavourable verdict — be it on civil liberties, government action, or religious symbolism — citizens are free to discuss or even disagree with the ruling, but not to incite disobedience or denigrate the institution.
 |
| Image for representational purpose only |
In the current digital milieu, criticism of judgments has rapidly devolved into ridicule — from sharing doctored videos mocking judges to hashtags that trend with impunity, openly calling for mass non-compliance. This phenomenon not only undermines the authority of the judiciary but chips away at the rule of law — a foundational pillar of Indian democracy.
Earlier, public opinion on judicial pronouncements was shaped through nuanced editorial columns and academic journals. Today, the rise of instant, unmoderated discourse on WhatsApp, Twitter (X), Instagram, and YouTube has created informal digital courtrooms — kangaroo courts that deliver judgments on the judgments themselves.
What exacerbates the concern is the lack of accountability. Messages forwarded thousands of times falsely claim that a ruling is biased, "anti-national", or bought — with no attempt at legal analysis. Often, such content originates from individuals with no legal training, and yet it rapidly overshadows the original court decision itself.
Indian jurisprudence is no stranger to balancing free expression and judicial integrity. In E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970), the Supreme Court firmly stated that public figures have no immunity from contempt if their remarks undermine courts. Similarly, in Arundhati Roy’s case (2002), the Apex Court held that personal liberty cannot be stretched to license unrestrained contempt.
Even in the landmark Prashant Bhushan Case (2020), while the court imposed only a symbolic fine of ₹1, it upheld that public criticism, when bordering on vilification, erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that constructive criticism must be distinguished from scandalous contempt — a line increasingly obliterated in digital discourse.
A common justification for digital uproar is the perceived lack of recourse. But Indian law provides structured remedies to contest a judgment:
Review Petitions under CPC or constitutional provisions;
Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court under Article 136;
Curative Petitions in rare circumstances;
Even Presidential mercy under Article 72 in criminal cases.
However, rather than adopt these lawful avenues, many choose the route of public defiance, often egged on by political interests or vested narratives.
Refusing to adhere to a High Court ruling or inciting such defiance can amount to civil or criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:
Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of any court order. Criminal Contempt: Any publication or act that scandalises the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs justice.
Under Section 12, penalties include imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to ₹2,000, or both. Importantly, even forwards of contemptuous material may attract liability — a reality most WhatsApp users remain oblivious to.
As India negotiates its place as the world's largest democracy amidst an increasingly polarised information ecosystem, the integrity of its judiciary must remain sacrosanct. While disagreeing with a judgment is perfectly legitimate, disobeying it publicly or calling for its flouting is not.
Public figures, influencers, journalists, and even legal professionals must tread responsibly. Critique, yes — but within the framework of legality and respect for constitutional processes. Social media may offer an instant platform, but justice — and its preservation — demands restraint, rigour, and respect.
The current trend of denigrating Supreme Court and High Court judgments on social media and messaging platforms, often under the guise of free expression, poses a grave risk to the constitutional sanctity of judicial authority.
It is imperative — now more than ever — that citizens, especially those wielding reach and influence, uphold their rights with responsibility and within the bounds of law. For when the judiciary is not merely questioned but systematically undermined, what begins to fray is not just legal order but the very fabric of our democracy — thread by precious thread.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
