LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Others

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 647Decided 5 May 2025
Writ Petition (C) No. 466/2025
Chief Justice · Justice Sanjay Kumar

Background

The petitioner, appearing in person, sought suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a named individual (a Member of Parliament) for allegedly making scandalising remarks against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India in connection with the Court's hearing of challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including statements blaming the Supreme Court for "civil wars" and for inciting "religious wars" in the country. The petitioner also sought a police FIR against the individual and a government advisory against hate speech by political leaders generally.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found the remarks "highly irresponsible" and capable of scandalising the judiciary, but explained that the power of criminal contempt is discretionary and courts need not react defensively to every objectionable statement, since public confidence in courts is not so fragile as to be shaken by such remarks. It reaffirmed that judicial decisions can be freely and even harshly criticised as part of free speech, and that courts derive legitimacy from reasoned, transparent, and accountable functioning rather than from suppressing criticism. It declined to initiate contempt proceedings or direct an FIR, but firmly stated that genuine hate speech, as distinct from criticism of judicial decisions, must be dealt with strictly under the law, and dismissed the petition with these observations.

Lesson Learnt

Courts distinguish between legitimate, even sharp, criticism of judicial decisions (protected free speech) and hate speech or scandalising statements; the Supreme Court chooses restraint over the contempt power in most such cases, relying instead on public trust in its institutional legitimacy, while making clear that hate speech more broadly will not be tolerated.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Contempt of Court

Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Mansi Brar vs. Mohit Singh

The Court found that the subject properties had already been sold before the status quo order was passed. The respondent did not disclose this in his reply and instead relied on other grounds, and the exact position emerged only after the Court directed him to file an affidavit. The Court held that the earlier order was passed on the basis of this non-disclosure, and that he had also wilfully breached his undertaking. He was held guilty of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The text of the judgment supplied does not show a sentence or penalty.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Dr. Naresh Kumar vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

The Court found the respondents had in fact complied with the specific direction in the earlier order: the petitioner had been promoted to CMO (OG) as ordered, and had even been further promoted to CMO (SG) since then. Since the scope of contempt proceedings is confined to the exact directions given in the order allegedly violated, and the order never addressed promotion to DIG, the Court held the petitioner could not use contempt proceedings to expand relief to a promotion issue never covered by the original order, and dismissed the petition.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Bharat Singh Rawat vs. Dr. Poonam Singh Rawat

Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda), the Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act is maintainable only against an order actually punishing someone for contempt, not against an order merely directing compliance. Since no punishment had been imposed, the impugned order was not appealable under Section 19, and the appeal was disposed of, with liberty given to the appellant to separately seek clubbing of the multiple pending cases before the single judge.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Naima Khatoon vs. Utpal Chakraborty & Anr.

The Court found that two specific cheques relied upon had never actually been presented for encashment, so no contempt arose from them. However, a receipt dated 30.11.2017 for Rs. 1,00,320 remained unclear as to whether that amount was actually collected. The Court did not impose a contempt penalty but directed that if the amount had indeed been realized by the respondents in violation of the earlier orders, it must be refunded to the petitioner with 12% annual interest within eight weeks.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Niwas

The High Court declined to interfere, holding it saw no basis to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction over what were essentially procedural orders granting further time and recording the government's own officers' assurances of compliance: assurances given while the government was represented by two counsel, not under any unfair coercion. The Court clarified its order was not an opinion on the merits of the underlying contempt petition, which the Tribunal remains free to decide.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Contempt of CourtDelhi High Court

Teena Kapoor vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The Division Bench found that although the appellant knew of the pending litigation when she bought the flat and chose not to join those proceedings, she still faced the imminent threat of demolition without having been heard. The Court therefore directed that no demolition take place until her impleadment applications are decided by the Single Judge, permitted her to also seek impleadment in the related civil suit, and recorded her undertaking not to carry out any further construction in the meantime.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case