The Supreme Court of India has initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist and YouTuber, for allegedly making scandalous and defamatory remarks against a sitting judge of the apex court. The case, titled "IN RE: SCANDALOUS REMARKS MADE BY MR. AJAY SHUKLA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, VARPRAD MEDIA PVT. LTD., A DIGITAL CHANNEL," was heard on Friday by a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar.
This marks the first instance in 2025 where the Supreme Court has initiated a suo motu criminal contempt case. While the specific remarks that triggered the contempt action have not been officially disclosed by the Court, reports suggest that the action was prompted by a video on Shukla's YouTube channel, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., concerning the retirement of Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The video in question allegedly referred to Justice Trivedi as a "Godi judge," a politically charged term often used to describe individuals perceived to be aligned with or favorable to the Central government.
The Court has directed Shukla to take down the offending video immediately and has restrained his channel from republishing it or similar content. The Court also issued a notice to Shukla, the Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media, seeking his response to the contempt charges. Additionally, the Supreme Court has requested the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the proceedings. The matter is scheduled for further consideration after the summer vacations, on July 18, 2025.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed his support for the court's suo motu cognizance, stating, "It is very serious. Grateful suo motu was taken." The bench emphasized that while the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be misused to make defamatory or contemptuous statements against the judiciary. The Court noted that the scandalous allegations made by Shukla in the video were likely to bring disrepute to the institution of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court has the authority to punish for contempt of itself under Article 129 of the Constitution. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court. The current action underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to protecting the integrity and reputation of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system.
