The observations of the Supreme Court expressing concern over the “growing and disturbing trend” of litigants and lawyers making scandalous allegations against judges should serve as a wake-up call for the entire legal fraternity. What was once unthinkable-open defiance of judicial authority, public vilification of judges, and even physical acts of aggression-has, alarmingly, begun to surface with disturbing regularity. This instance is not merely about a few individuals crossing the line; it is about the erosion of respect for an institution that forms the backbone of democracy. The case of litigant N Peddi Raju and two lawyers exemplifies this malaise, as they made derogatory remarks against a Telangana High Court judge. The Supreme Court rightly cautioned that such conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Yet, despite strong words, the Apex Court chose to close the contempt proceedings after the apologies were accepted. While forgiveness has its place, a pattern seems to be emerging where repeated acts of contempt are being condoned under the guise of magnanimity. This leniency, though humane in spirit, may be inadvertently emboldening the very behaviour the court seeks to condemn.
It is not an isolated incident. From the hurling of a shoe at the Chief Justice of India by a Supreme Court lawyer to the routine trolling of judges on social media, the boundaries of acceptable dissent are being pushed beyond repair. In an era of instant digital outrage, court verdicts are not just appealed against in higher benches-they are being judged, mocked, and dissected on social platforms by people with little understanding of law. Worse, lawyers and political actors often lead this chorus, lending misplaced legitimacy to mob criticism.
A dangerous culture of personalising judicial decisions has taken root. When rulings do not align with one’s expectations or political beliefs, the immediate response now seems to be to attack the judge rather than the argument. The result is profoundly damaging. Judges, like all human beings, are fallible-but their verdicts are based on facts, evidence, and the written law. There are well-established mechanisms for review, appeal, and correction within the judicial hierarchy. Resorting to slander or theatrics outside courtrooms is not dissent-it is defiance of the rule of law.
Equally worrisome is the rise of politically motivated litigation. Many petitions today are designed less to seek justice and more to score political points or discredit opponents. The judiciary, which should be kept free from political influence, finds itself dragged into controversies that have nothing to do with the pursuit of justice. When lawyers-officers of the court-lend their signatures to petitions filled with scandalous and unfounded allegations, they betray not just their professional oath but the very system that sustains their practice.
The Supreme Court’s own actions, unfortunately, send mixed signals. The recent forgiveness of the lawyer who hurled a shoe at the Chief Justice, and now the acceptance of apologies in cases involving scurrilous remarks, may be seen as compassionate gestures. Yet, when viewed collectively, they suggest a reluctance to enforce accountability. The majesty of law lies in deterrence. Without consequences, there can be no respect for boundaries. If those entrusted with upholding the law can defame judges with impunity and then walk free after a mere apology, what message does that send to society? Laws are equal for all; diluting procedures for one class-particularly those from within the legal system-sets a poor precedent. It blurs the line between compassion and compromise. The bar councils, too, must act decisively against advocates who misuse their positions to malign judges. Disciplinary mechanisms should not remain ornamental.
The judiciary’s credibility rests not only on its judgments but also on its ability to command respect. The courts cannot afford to appear helpless in the face of such affronts. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court must draw a firm line. Contempt of court is not about protecting egos-it is about preserving faith in justice. The time has come to send a clear, unambiguous message that undermining the judiciary will invite strict consequences, regardless of the offender’s profession or prominence.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
