In 1970 a three-judge Supreme Court bench, speaking through Chief Justice Hidayatullah, upheld the criminal-contempt conviction of a sitting Chief Minister for press-conference remarks attacking the judiciary. A digest of the facts, the line between fair criticism and scandalising the court, the place of Article 19(1)(a), and the reduced fine.
Valkya Editorial··8 min
High CourtHigh Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
A single judge of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court took suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt against the law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas for allegedly misquoting an earlier judgment in a pre-litigation legal notice. A Division Bench closed the proceedings, holding that a bona fide — even erroneous — reading of a judgment is not contempt absent wilful distortion. A digest of the facts, the ratio, and what it means for advocates.
On 21 April 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court convicted advocate Gulshan Pahuja — who runs the YouTube channel 'Fight 4 Judicial Reforms' — of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for content that the Court held was designed to scandalise the judiciary as a whole. On 16 May 2026, the same Bench sentenced Pahuja to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 in each of two criminal contempt cases. The judgment is a recent doctrinal application of the line between fair criticism and contempt of court in the digital-content environment.