The Kerala High Court has underscored the right to critique judicial actions, deciding not to pursue contempt charges against an online magazine editor. This decision, rendered by a Division Bench comprised of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar, emphasizes the legitimacy of outspoken public discourse regarding the judiciary, as articulated in the case Suo Motu v MR Ajayan.
Judicial Criticism and Public Interest
In a landmark ruling, the High Court observed that individuals possess the inherent right to voice fair and even bold opinions about the judicial system, especially concerning matters of public interest. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sheela Barse v Union of India, the Bench reiterated that contempt jurisdiction should be invoked only when there is indisputable evidence of contemptuous action.
The judgment elaborated that courts should only respond to criticism when it is excessively offensive, rather than acting to shield judicial reputation or stifle critique. It stated, “It is the privileged right of every Indian citizen to hold opinions that he believes to be true and to express those opinions, even if they are not always articulated in the best of taste and are spoken with greater courage than precision. The judiciary is not immune from criticism.”
Case Details and Court’s Observations
The case against MR Ajayan, the chief editor of ‘Green Kerala News’, arose from a contentious report about the children of judges attending self-financing medical colleges. Allegations were made that the report was not only baseless and defamatory but also aimed at negatively influencing a pending case regarding admissions in such colleges.
However, the court noted a lack of any interim order indicating a prima facie case of criminal contempt against Ajayan. Additionally, it was observed that the magazine did not possess a significant readership that might influence public perception unduly.
In closing the proceedings, the court echoed sentiments of dignified resilience, as previously expressed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer, advocating for a judiciary that tolerates criticism while acting against overtly offensive excesses.
Senior public prosecutor Jikku Jacob represented the state during the proceedings.
