NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday initiated criminal contempt proceedings against YouTube journalist Ajay Shukla for his contemptuous, scandalous and defamatory remarks casting aspersions on senior-most judge of SC, Justice Surya Kant, for the way a bench led by him dealt with Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his “crass comments” on Col Sofiya Qureshi.A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh had rejected Shah’s apology terming it a facade, and ordered an SIT to probe his comments, but stayed his arrest. The same bench had enforced a similar process against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for his “objectionable” comments on Op Sindoor.
On Friday, a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices A G Masih and A S Chandurkar took suo motu cognisance of a 150-second YouTube video in which Shukla, who claims to be editor-in-chief of a digital media organisation, was heard attributing motives while making unfounded defamatory allegations against Justice Kant, who is next in line to become the CJI. Terming Shukla’s remarks “scathingly scandalous”, the bench said, “No doubt the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but at the same time, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions specified under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. A person cannot be permitted to make allegations defamatory and contemptuous in nature which brings the highest institution in judiciary to disrepute.”SC directed its registry to lodge a suo motu criminal contempt case against Shukla and the YouTube channel. SC sought Shukla’s response and posted further hearing in July.SC sought the assistance of attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who said Shukla’s comments were defamatory and contemptuous. The bench directed the YouTube channel to take down the video and restrained social media platforms from exhibiting the clip.In SC’s judgment punishing advocate Prashant Bhushan for contempt in 2020, a three-judge bench, of which Justice Gavai was a part, had said, “If a scathing attack is made on judges, it would become difficult for them to work fearlessly and with the objectivity of approach to the issues. The judgment can be criticised. However, motives to the judges need not be attributed, as it brings administration of justice into disrepute.“
