Justice must not only be done, but must also appear to have been done

 On 13th April, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, Shri Arvind Kejriwal, argued his case in the High Court of Delhi for the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing his case. In a lengthy argument of more than an hour, he raised ten points as to why she should not hear the case. The most damning ground was that, since she is sympathetic to the philosophy or ideology of a particular party, which is his political enemy, he has genuine reasons to believe he will not receive fair justice from the court presided over by her. He specifically mentioned that she has attended four programmes of Adhivakta Parishad, which is closely linked with the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is hostile to him and his party. Shri Kejriwal wants a judge of impeccable integrity to hear his case and decide the matter. Justice Sharma has reserved the order.

There is no doubt that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done. On the 15th of April, Kejriwal levelled another allegation to impeach her integrity, namely that her two children, son and daughter, are on different panels of the Central government; therefore, she can hardly be expected to dispense fair justice to him.

However, if the logic of Shri Kejriwal is accepted on its face, nobody can function as a judge in most of the cases. Most of the judges, right from the Supreme Court to the subordinate courts, have their near and dear ones working in government organisations and corporate houses, where they perform their duties. Here, the accepted norm is that nobody will practise in the court where any relative of theirs is a judge. This is very fragile ground. From this logic, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma cannot be kept under the scanner. Preventing any judge from attending any function organised by an organisation having proximity with any political party is a far-fetched theory. If this logic is accepted, then it will amount to direct curtailment of the fundamental rights of an individual. Thus, this argument or allegation of Kejriwal stands on a very weak footing. There have not been one or two but hundreds of examples where judges have been active members of political parties, but nobody has raised any doubt over their justice or jurisprudence. Justice VR Krishna Aiyer is the most shining example of it, whose judgments have been appreciated by one and all.

Another point is that if it were not Kejriwal, could any ordinary person, or as they say, any aam aadmi, have got this opportunity to address the court? Kejriwal used this marathon opportunity to level allegations, left and right, against the court. In all fairness, he should have been asked to file the affidavit instead of being allowed to make a political speech in the court.

Procedure is the First Casualty in Allahabad High Court

 The recent proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in the alleged dual citizenship case against Rahul Gandhi offer a troubling reminder: in moments of urgency, it is often procedure that is sacrificed first—and with it, the legitimacy of the outcome.

At the core lies a simple, non-negotiable rule: audi alteram partem—no one should be condemned unheard. Yet the initial direction to register an FIR appears to have been issued without hearing the person most affected. The Court’s subsequent recall of its own order was not just corrective; it was necessary. But the question lingers—how was such a lapse allowed to occur at all?

Equally concerning is the route taken. After the trial court declined relief, the petitioner bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and moved the High Court directly. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly cautioned against precisely this practice. High Courts are not meant to be first-stop forums for FIR registration; they are constitutional courts of last resort.

This was never a routine criminal complaint. Allegations involving citizenship—particularly those tied to foreign documentation—demand careful investigation, evidentiary rigour, and procedural discipline. Short-circuiting that process risks turning serious legal questions into spectacles.

To be clear, constitutional courts do have the power to direct registration of an FIR. But that power is exceptional, not every day. When exercised without due caution, it blurs the line between judicial oversight and executive function.

What ultimately saved the situation here was timing. The order was reconsidered before it was signed. Had it been finalised, the Court would have become functus officio, and the path to correction would have been far more complex.

The larger lesson is straightforward: substance cannot come at the cost of process. If allegations are serious, they must be investigated thoroughly and impartially. But that investigation must begin the right way, through the right forum, and with the right safeguards. Because in the rule of law, how you proceed is often as important as what you decide.

 

Abdul Basit must be sent to a mental asylum

 

Anyone who has seen the rubbish talk of Abdul Basit, the former envoy of Pakistan to India, will hardly doubt that he has gone mad and needs to be admitted to a mental asylum. Look at what he says: if there is any attack by the USA on Pakistan’s nuclear installations, Pakistan must first attack Delhi and Mumbai. This reveals his insanity, Jihadi mentality and diabolical hatred for India. It appears that he is unaware that ‘Operation Sindoor’ has only been suspended, not stopped.

Pakistan’s image is of a beggar country. No organisation or country is willing to lend even loans or alms to this ungrateful nation. In the name of Islam, it has entered into a mutual aid cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Still, it has not even spoken a word against the bombardment of oil installations by Iran in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has been carrying out terrorist explosions in India, but now receives the same reply from Afghanistan, and no country is coming to help her, knowing her history of dishonesty. Pakistan is untrustworthy to its own co-religionists and friends. This beggar cannot go against the USA, and at the same time, it can never ignore its co-religionists. The killing of Osama Bin Laden from its military garrison is a glaring example of Pakistan’s treachery.

The days are not far off when Pakistan will be disintegrated into at least four parts. Its nuclear projects will be destroyed by none other than the Baloch, Sindhis and Pashtuns. It is said that India-haters like Abdul Basit get more support from India than anywhere else, so it is necessary to identify such snakes and punish them.  

 

The Supreme Court to Clarify the Definition of “Industry”

 

New Delhi, IFWJ Headquarters
Circular No. 5/2026

Comrades,

The Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has concluded three days of hearing in
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh.

Your organisation, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ), presented its submissions through the Secretary-General, who is also an Advocate-on-Record before the Supreme Court of India.

The IFWJ strongly emphasised the Triple Test theory of “industry”, as laid down by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in the landmark seven-judge bench decision of 1978. The test lays down three essential conditions:

1.      Systematic Activity – The activity must be organised and structured (e.g., factory, hospital, educational institution).

2.      Employer–Employee Relationship – There must exist cooperation between employer and employees, irrespective of profit motive.

3.      Production/Distribution of Goods or Services – The activity must aim at satisfying human wants or needs, including sectors such as healthcare, education, and transport.

Justice Krishna Iyer had also clarified those sovereign functions of the State—such as police, judiciary, and core governmental functions—as well as domestic services, fall outside the scope of “industry.”

The IFWJ highlighted that, from the perspective of workers, the nature of the institution—whether charitable, religious, or educational—is immaterial. For instance, if hundreds of workers are engaged in preparing laddoos for the Tirupati Temple, they should be afforded protection under labour laws, just like workers in any commercial establishment. Similarly, a driver’s entitlement to protection should not depend on whether he is employed by a school, a factory, or any other institution.

Following the decision in Bangalore Water Supply, several cases raised concerns about the breadth of the definition. In State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005), a Constitution Bench referred the issue to a larger bench. Subsequently, in 2016, then Chief Justice T. S. Thakur recommended that the matter be placed before a Nine-Judge Bench.

After nearly four decades, the present Chief Justice has constituted the Nine-Judge Bench to finally settle the law. A definitive and authoritative interpretation of “industry” is now expected.

The IFWJ also opposed the subsuming of the Working Journalists Act under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, and advocated for an expanded scope to include journalists working in electronic, digital, and social media.

The Bench is headed by the Chief Justice of India and comprises Justices B. V. Nagarathna, P. S. Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, and Vipul M. Pancholi.

Thanking you,
With greetings on the occasion of Navratri and Eid al-Fitr.

Sincerely yours,
Paramanand Pandey

 

 

Judiciary is, without doubt, neck-deep in corruption and needs to be cleaned

A few of my friends have drawn my attention to my earlier post that the credibility of the judiciary is at its ebb, although it still enjoys more trust from the people than any other organs of governance. A harassed person, tired of everywhere, has nowhere to go except the judiciary to get some relief. But it is equally true of other departments. For example, corruption in hospitals and in the field of medicine is known to everybody, yet we still go to hospitals, private clinics and doctors, knowing the fact that a common man is bound to be cheated by them, but they still go to them because there is no alternative left for them.

So much so. Even in the field of education, a common person is cheated. They know it, but there is no alternative as the TINA factor works. Most of the good schools and educational institutions not only charge hefty fees but also demand huge donations for admissions. Teachers do not properly teach the students, driven by the greed of earning money in the name of private tuition. But even then, one sends their children to the schools and institutions at the pain of extortion by them. Therefore, it makes no sense that courts are still considered the last hope of the general public. But then, it does not mean that courts should not be subjected to public criticism,

When speaking of the judiciary, we do not mean only the High Courts and the Supreme Court. There is hardly any doubt that the system is neck-deep in corruption. Go to any district or Tehsil, where you cannot get even the next dates of hearings or any basic information without bribing the clerks, who sit barely a few feet away from the seat of the judges. Corruption in the judiciary does not mean only the judges of the higher judiciary; it concerns the entire system of the judiciary, including orderlies and clerks to judges. Therefore, the judges should not be unnecessarily thin-skinned; instead, they should seriously consider how to restore the people's confidence.

The trust and respect of the common man cannot be restored by instilling fear among them by using the sword of contempt of the court, but by removing the drawbacks and dirt, which are there to be seen by one and all. Cleanliness in the judicial system is the need of the hour, but it cannot be achieved by keeping all the doors and windows tightly shut. It can be done only by involving the common man.   

Judiciary suffers from a deep crisis of credibility

It is often said that sunlight is the best disinfectant — a reminder that transparency is the foundation of reliability. Without transparency, public trust or faith cannot meaningfully exist. Undeniably, the judiciary has traditionally enjoyed greater public confidence than any other constitutional branch, whether Parliament or the Executive. Even the so-called fourth pillar of democracy — the media — has, in recent years, been grappling with a serious crisis of credibility.

However, signs now suggest that the judiciary’s own trustworthiness is also facing erosion. The subordinate judiciary at the district level is frequently criticised by the public for perceived corruption. While the higher judiciary continues to command relatively greater confidence, recent developments indicate that this faith, too, may be waning. Government data has revealed a striking figure that has reignited debate over judicial accountability in India: over the past decade, more than 8,200 complaints have reportedly been received against sitting judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

This number raises serious questions not only about judicial conduct but also about the manner in which such complaints are processed. How many of these complaints have actually reached a logical conclusion remains an open and pressing question. Depending on the findings of in-house enquiries, outcomes may range from dismissal of complaints to informal advisories, while, in the rarest instances, matters proceed towards impeachment through Parliament — a path that has historically been exceptional and politically complex. The public understandably expects timely inquiries and decisive action against judges found wanting, rather than processes that move at a glacial pace.

Although confidentiality is often justified as essential to preserving judicial independence, excessive opacity can fuel speculation and deepen public distrust — particularly when complaints number in the thousands. Striking a careful balance between independence and accountability, therefore, remains one of the most critical challenges facing the Indian judiciary today.

Almost Nil Impact of Bharat Bandh Call of Trade Unions

 On February 12, Jantar Mantar in New Delhi served as a focal point for a major gathering as part of a nationwide general strike (Bharat Bandh). Unfortunately, the gathering drew fewer than 500 people. These people were presented as workers, but most were college students. The demonstration was organised by a joint platform of over 10 Central Trade Unions (CTUs), including CITU, AITUC, and INTUC, as well as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM). This dismal demonstration by the Trade Unions further proves that workers are no longer interested in their tall talk, as the Unions have miserably failed to protect the interests of the working class in India. Things have also changed. There are now a negligible number of workers. Their way of working has changed. They have become habituated to the new facilities. Therefore, they cannot be herded like the workers of the eighties or even the nineties.

The protesters called for the repeal of the four new labour codes, the restoration of MGNREGA (which they claim has been undermined by recent acts), and the withdrawal of the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Draft Seed Bill. These Trade Unionists are themselves unaware of the nuances of the new labour codes. It will, therefore, be advisable for trade unionists to organise a refresher course on the new labour codes, where they can invite young professionals such as Yajat Kumar of the LLR, the grandson of the legendary lawyer, the late HL Kumar.

Impact of the Strike

The overall impact of the Bandh calls across Delhi and the rest of the country was muted. The strike had some impact in states like Kerala, where public transport and banking were somewhat disrupted. In other regions such as West Bengal and Gujarat, life remained largely normal. Public sector banks saw partial disruptions in some places, as major unions like AIBEA joined the strike, affecting cheque clearances and counter services in several branches.

 

Three Generations of Legal Excellence: The Evolution of Labour Law

The legacy of the late Shri H.L. Kumar, the legendary lawyer and founding editor of the prestigious Labour Law Reporter (LLR), continues to reach new heights through the dedicated work of his son and grandson. Gaurav Kumar and Yajat Kumar have taken up the mantle, ensuring that the foundation laid by the patriarch remains a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence while evolving for a modern era.

The Dual Pillars of the Kumar Legacy

The family's contribution to the legal field now operates through two strategic strengths:

•        Gaurav Kumar: Continues the tradition of rigorous advocacy, focusing on high-stakes litigation and landmark cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

•        Yajat Kumar: Has emerged as a "beacon light" for the media and industrial sectors, bridging the gap between complex statutory requirements and practical corporate application.

A Visionary in Legal Consultancy

Recently, the younger Kumar was bestowed with the "Industry Change Makers Award," a rare distinction instituted by India’s leading publications, The Economic Times and The Times of India. This accolade recognises Yajat Kumar as a premier employment law consultant, a title reserved for those who demonstrate exceptional leadership and a transformative impact on their field.

In many circles, it is whispered that Yajat has become the "New H.L. Kumar," not only matching the brilliance of his grandfather but surpassing traditional boundaries to meet the needs of a globalised workforce.

The Recognition: Why he is a "Change Maker"

The award specifically acknowledged Yajat’s role in reshaping the industry through:

•        Strategic Guidance: Navigating intricate employment issues with surgical precision.

•        Balanced Advocacy: Championing robust legal frameworks that harmonise the interests of both employers and employees.

•        Thought Leadership: Driving the editorial vision of LLR to remain the most trusted resource for legal professionals and HR practitioners.

Mastery of the New Frontier

Perhaps Yajat Kumar’s most significant contemporary contribution is his profound clarity regarding the Four New Labour Codes. As these codes come into force, his "incredible and excellent" understanding has made him an indispensable asset to organisations struggling to navigate the transition.

His dedication to legal excellence and innovation ensures that the Kumar name remains synonymous with the highest standards of Indian labour and employment law.

 

Social Media: An Unguided Missile Needing Regulation

 The growth of responsible media is welcome; no other medium disseminates information or commentary with such speed. However, information circulated on these platforms must often be taken with a pinch of salt. Frequently, we are bombarded with fabricated narratives driven by purveyors with their own axes to grind. These individuals often fail to realise the damage they inflict on the credibility of information and the reputation of the media itself.

The root of this anarchy is a lack of binding ethics or values. While self-regulation is often emphasised, it remains, in reality, a charade. Unlike traditional media, social media lacks a "gatekeeper," making it a double-edged weapon. Artificial Intelligence, otherwise immensely useful, has further empowered bad actors to distort facts and manufacture narratives that suit their agendas.

Just today, we witnessed a prime example of this: a deluge of social media posts claiming that the West Bengal Chief Minister—a law graduate from a lesser-known college—argued the "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) case in the Supreme Court with the prowess of a senior counsel. Viral photographs depicted her in an advocate’s robes, cementing this false narrative.

The truth, however, is legal and distinct. She appeared before the Court only as a party in person, a right permitted under Indian law. As a matter of fact, no Minister or Chief Minister can appear in court as an advocate.

This prohibition is grounded in Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any government or corporation. If an advocate takes up such employment, they must suspend their practice. While the Supreme Court has clarified that MPs and MLAs can practice (as they are elected representatives, not employees), the position for Ministers is different. Ministers hold an "Office of Profit" and perform full-time executive duties; thus, they are precluded from practising law to prevent a conflict of interest.

Despite this clear legal position, fake news about her "brilliant advocacy" is being peddled with reckless abandon. The reality of her performance was starkly different. While she certainly addressed the court, her arguments were legally lacking and, at times, frivolous. The language was untenable.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the Chief Minister, but the medium. Her case is merely a symptom of a larger malady. It is imperative that the government, in consultation with responsible media organisations, evolve a robust regulatory mechanism to force social media onto a path of accountability.

Concerns Over the Notification of New UGC Rules

 

The new rules notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 13 January 2026 have generated significant debate and criticism, particularly among some students from the general category. Several groups argued that the framework could unintentionally create perceptions of reverse discrimination. Protests were reported outside the UGC office in Delhi and in other parts of the country, led by organisations such as the “Savarna Sena.” Their principal concern was that the rules did not clearly specify a parallel grievance-reporting mechanism for general category students and might lead to an increase in complaints and administrative complications. The situation, however, stabilised after the Supreme Court granted an interim injunction.

Critics contend that the rules appear to have been notified without sufficiently wide consultation or careful evaluation of their broader social and institutional impact. One major objection is the expansion of coverage to include additional OBC categories without a publicly presented body of evidence demonstrating widespread systemic discrimination in every newly included group. Opponents argue that existing UGC regulations already provide mechanisms to address harassment and discrimination, and that strengthening implementation may have been preferable to expanding the regulatory scope.

Some commentators also question whether the policy debate has relied too heavily on a limited number of high-profile cases, where facts and conclusions remain contested or complex. They suggest that policymaking in this sensitive area should be grounded in comprehensive data, transparent review, and stakeholder consultation across communities.

At the same time, supporters of broader protections argue that discrimination can exist in varied forms and that preventive frameworks are better created early rather than after patterns become entrenched. This difference in perspective highlights the need for more evidence-based dialogue rather than polarised reactions.

The broader philosophical concern remains: if the long-term social objective is to move toward a casteless society, policymakers must carefully assess whether expanding caste-based regulatory structures helps reduce inequity or inadvertently reinforces social divisions. Some earlier thinkers, including Chaudhary Charan Singh, had suggested that incentivising inter-caste marriages could be a more enduring social reform measure. Such proposals deserve renewed discussion alongside regulatory approaches.

Given the sensitivity of the issue, it would be prudent for the government and regulatory bodies to revisit the rules through wider consultation, clearer drafting, and stronger empirical justification, while keeping the focus on fairness, social harmony, and educational development.

Avoidable Controversy by Swami Avimukteshwaranand

 

The controversy raged by Swami Avimukteshwaranand during the Mauni Amavasya snan (bath) in the Sangam at Prayagraj was unjustified and could have been avoided. His claim to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmatt is unique and remains contested. Each Shankaracharya is seen as the custodian of one Veda and one Mahavakya, ensuring the preservation of Advait Vedanta.

Although the sterling work for the Vedic religion was done by Rishi Dayanand Saraswati, who was the founder of Arya Samaj, he never favoured the system of Shankaracharya. The location of Jyotishpeeth is Joshimatha in Uttarakhand, North. The Atharva Veda is attached to this Math, and its Mahavakya is: Ayam Atma Brahma, i.e. This self is Brahman.

Sama Veda is associated with the Dwarka Sharda Peetham of Dwarka in the West. Its Mahavakya is Tattwam Asi, i.e. Thou art That. Govardhan Matt is situated in Puri of Odissa. Rigveda is associated with it, and its Mahavakya is Pragyanam Brahma, which emphasises that Consciousness is Brahman, which means pure awareness itself is the ultimate reality. The highly respected Sringeri Sharda Peetham is located in the South at Sringeri of Karnataka, and it is the custodian of the Yajurveda and the Mahavakya is Aham Brahmasmi, i. e. I am Brahman, which is a direct realisation of one’s identity with Brahman.

  Together, the four Mahavakyas form a complete philosophical system, emphasising the non-dual identity of Atman (Self) and Brahman (Absolute Reality). This structure also explains why the Shankaracharyas are revered not just regionally but are considered guardians of the entire Vedantic tradition. Their contribution, however, to the betterment of society has been next to nil as compared to the Arya Samaj.

It was Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who revived Jyotirmath in 1941. This Jyotirmatt was without any Shankaracharya for centuries.  After his death, Swami Shantanand Saraswati was appointed, but many disciples rejected his claim.  Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati also claimed the seat, leading to decades of disputes. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, eventually asserted authority and was widely recognised, though not without opposition.  Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, Swaroopanand’s disciple, was declared successor in 2022, but his claim is being legally contested by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, a disciple of Swami Shantanand.

 Swami Avimukteswaranand could have won the hearts of the people by his conduct, but he always appears to be in a pugnacious mood, giving rise to one or the other controversy.

 

 

Religious Bigotry: A Mark of Backwardness

Every society and religion has faced social evils, but progressive communities have always embraced reform. For instance, Hindu society once struggled with practices such as child marriage, sati, and dowry. These customs, though deeply entrenched, were eventually abolished through legislation and widespread public support.

Similarly, Muslim societies have grappled with harmful practices such as Triple Talaq, Halala, and restrictive interpretations of the Hijab. While some of these issues have been addressed through reform laws, what remains troubling is the resistance from certain community leaders who oppose change. Practices like Misyar marriages among Sunnis and Mutah marriages among Shias persist in some regions, highlighting the need for continued reform.

The eradication of such evils depends on the spread of scientific education and rational thought. Reformers in India raised their voices against sati, child marriage, and dowry, leading to laws that were widely accepted without opposition from Hindu religious leaders. In contrast, within Islam, reform efforts often encounter resistance from fundamentalist and radical elements.

A striking example comes from Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise society and limit religious conservatism. He famously criticised the hijab, calling women in veils “walking tents.” His reforms, however, faced strong opposition, including the Khilafat movement, which was ironically supported by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi despite its regressive stance.

Figures such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali spearheaded the Khilafat movement, prioritising religious orthodoxy over social progress. The establishment of institutions commemorating such leaders raises questions about the true spirit of secularism.

It is tragic that nations like Turkey and Iran—once seen as pioneers of reform—have regressed into regimes dominated by religious bigotry. Social reform must never be obstructed by religious obscurantism. Leaders and followers of all faiths must adapt to the pace of modern times. Societies that resist progress are destined to remain backward in every sphere of life.

Judicial Criticism and the Limits of Public Discourse

 

It is a settled principle of law that once a judgment is delivered, it enters the public domain. Citizens, scholars, and practitioners are free to analyse, appreciate, or criticise it based on their understanding. Such engagement enriches jurisprudence and strengthens democratic debate. However, there is a crucial boundary: while judgments may be critiqued, motives must never be attributed to the judges who delivered them. To do so undermines judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the institution.

Unfortunately, contemporary discourse often blurs this line. Instead of analysing judgments on their merits—examining statutory interpretation, precedent, or reasoning—many commentators resort to questioning the personal background or alleged biases of judges, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria. This trend is not only intellectually shallow but also corrosive to the majesty of law.

The recent cases of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), illustrate this problem. Bail under UAPA is exceptionally stringent: courts must be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of terrorism-related offences. This makes bail far harder to obtain than in ordinary criminal cases. By contrast, parole—such as that repeatedly granted to Baba Ram Rahim—is a different legal mechanism altogether. Parole is a temporary release of a convict already serving a sentence, usually for humanitarian reasons such as illness, family emergencies, or education. It is granted by administrative authorities, not directly by courts, though courts may intervene if parole is denied arbitrarily. Furlough, distinct from parole, is a routine break granted for good conduct.

Thus, comparing bail under UAPA with parole for convicts is legally unsound. The two operate under entirely different frameworks, purposes, and thresholds. When biased commentators equate these distinct legal processes or attack judges personally, they mislead public understanding and weaken respect for judicial institutions. Criticism of judgments is welcome; scandalising judges is not. The judiciary’s authority rests on public trust, not coercive power. If this trust is eroded by reckless commentary, the rule of law itself is imperilled. Courts have the power to initiate contempt proceedings against those who scandalise or lower the authority of the judiciary. While suo motu action is exercised sparingly, there is a strong case for vigilance against commentators who substitute serious legal analysis with personal attacks. Protecting judicial dignity is not about silencing dissent—it is about ensuring that dissent remains within the bounds of reasoned, lawful discourse.