Supreme Court Initiates Contempt Action Against Chandigarh Journalist Ajay Shukla Over YouTube Video Targeting Judges

In a significant move to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court of India on Friday initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Chandigarh-based journalist and YouTuber Ajay Shukla. The court acted over a video posted on his YouTube channel, in which he allegedly made scandalous and contemptuous remarks about sitting judges of the apex court.

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and comprising Justices Augustine George Masih and AS Chandurkar, expressed strong disapproval of Ajay Shukla’s comments and directed that the controversial video be taken down immediately. The court also issued an order restraining the YouTube channel from republishing the same content or any similar material in the future.

Ajay Shukla, who is also the Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media, reportedly made disparaging remarks against Justice Bela M Trivedi, who is set to retire on June 9. The court took the matter seriously and issued a contempt notice to Shukla, emphasizing that his statements were not only defamatory but posed a threat to the public trust in the judicial system.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R Venkataramani were asked to assist the court in the proceedings. Mehta, addressing the gravity of the situation, said, “The remarks made are extremely serious and scandalous. I thank the court for taking suo motu cognizance of such a matter which strikes at the very integrity of the institution.”

CJI Gavai, reading the court’s observation, stated, “While the Constitution grants every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions. Defamatory and contemptuous statements directed at judges erode public confidence and bring disrepute to the judiciary.”

The court’s response underlines its zero-tolerance stance toward attempts to malign its credibility. It reiterated that while healthy criticism of judgments is welcome in a democratic setup, personal attacks against judges with the intent to tarnish their reputation fall within the realm of contempt and cannot be overlooked.

This case highlights the growing concern over misuse of digital platforms and social media to spread misinformation and defamatory content. As the legal proceedings unfold, it remains to be seen how the judiciary balances the fine line between freedom of speech and protection of its own integrity.