Circulating Malicious Material Against Judiciary At National-International Level Amounts To Inciting People Against...
Circulating Malicious Material Against Judiciary at National-International Level Amounts to Inciting People Against Judiciary
Introduction
The judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy and the rule of law.
Attacking the judiciary’s integrity through malicious material can erode public confidence, threaten judicial independence, and disrupt the administration of justice.
Circulation of defamatory, false, or malicious content against the judiciary, especially at national or international platforms, is a serious offense.
It often amounts to incitement against the judiciary, which is punishable under Indian law.
Legal Framework
Contempt of Court (Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971):
Defines contempt as the wilful attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of the court or interfere with its functioning.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Provisions:
Section 124A (Sedition): Punishes acts that incite hatred or contempt against the government or its institutions, including judiciary.
Section 500 (Defamation): Punishes defamation including defamatory statements against the judiciary.
Section 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief): Applies where statements incite public disorder or hatred.
Information Technology Act, 2000:
Addresses transmission of offensive, defamatory, or false information via electronic means.
Why Circulating Malicious Material Against Judiciary is Serious
Undermines Public Confidence: The judiciary’s authority depends on public trust.
Threat to Judicial Independence: Constant vilification can pressure judges or impact impartiality.
Disrupts Rule of Law: Inciting people against courts may lead to unrest or disrespect for law.
International Circulation Amplifies Harm: Malicious content spreading globally damages India’s judicial image internationally.
Judicial Views and Case Laws
1. Supreme Court — In Re: Arundhati Roy, (2002) 4 SCC 691
Held that scandalizing the court or lowering its authority is contempt.
Circulation of malicious material intending to bring judiciary into disrepute amounts to contempt and must be punished.
2. Supreme Court — State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601
Court emphasized that free speech has limits when it affects the dignity of the judiciary.
Malicious publications with intent to scandalize court can be penalized.
3. Supreme Court — Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
Upheld constitutional validity of Contempt of Courts Act provisions.
Held that speech that tends to undermine public confidence in judiciary is punishable.
4. Delhi High Court — Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6546
Court observed that maliciously circulating false information against judiciary falls under contempt and can be restrained.
5. Kerala High Court — Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1500
Court restrained the publication of defamatory material against judges and courts.
Held that courts have a duty to protect their image from malicious attacks.
Scope of Incitement
When malicious content is circulated widely—especially internationally—it can:
Incite public against judiciary
Encourage disobedience to court orders
Lead to loss of faith in justice system
Cause social unrest
Therefore, such acts are seen not only as contempt but as a threat to public order.
Balance with Freedom of Speech
The right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute.
Reasonable restrictions exist, including to protect judiciary’s dignity (Article 19(2)).
Courts have balanced the right to criticize with the need to maintain respect for judiciary.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Circulation of malicious material | Amounts to contempt and incitement against judiciary |
| Applicable laws | Contempt of Courts Act, IPC Sections 124A, 500, 505, IT Act |
| Effect of such circulation | Undermines public confidence, threatens judicial independence |
| Judicial stance | Strong punishment to safeguard judiciary’s authority |
| Freedom of speech | Subject to reasonable restrictions to protect judiciary |
Conclusion
Circulating malicious material against the judiciary, especially at national or international forums, is a serious offense that amounts to inciting people against the judiciary. The Indian judiciary has consistently held that such acts constitute contempt of court and public mischief, deserving strict penal action to preserve the sanctity, independence, and dignity of the judicial system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments