The Supreme Court of India on Friday ordered Chandigarh-based journalist Ajay Shukla and his YouTube channel, The Principle (owned by Varprad Media India Private Limited), to take down a video containing scandalous allegations against a senior judge of the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and Atul S Chandrapurkar passed the order restraining the YouTube channel from publishing that video.
“We direct the registry to register the case as suo motu contempt against Ajay Shukla. The YouTube channel shall be made a party respondent. Attorney General and Solicitor General are requested to assist the court. By ad interim order, we direct the YouTube channel to stop publication of the video and forthwith take down the video,” the Court directed.
“It is very serious. Grateful suo motu was taken,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court.
The Court noted that the video contains scandalous allegations against one of the senior judges of the apex court.
“Mr Shukla in the said video clip has made scandalous observations about one of the senior judges of this court. Such scandalous allegations widely published on YouTube are likely to bring disrepute to the august institution of judiciary,” the Bench said in its order.
The Court initiated the suo motu criminal contempt of court case titled “In Re: Scandalous Remarks Made by Mr. Ajay Shukla, Editor-in-Chief, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., a Digital Channel”
An examination of Shukla’s YouTube channel revealed that he had recently posted a video on the retirement of Justice Bela M Trivedi.
The video’s caption referred to Justice Trivedi as a “Godi judge”—a term commonly used to describe individuals or institutions perceived to act in alignment with the Central government’s interests.
The Supreme Court in its order today said that while the Constitution of India guarantees free speech, the right cannot be misused to make defamatory allegations against judges.
“No doubt the constitution guarantees free speech, and expression. Such a right is restricted by reasonable restrictions and cannot be allowed to make defamatory allegations regarding the judge of this court or contemptuous in nature which brings disrepute to the institute of judiciary,” the Court noted.
