The Supreme Court has taken Suo Motu cognisance of certain controversial comments made by Ajay Shukla, Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., a digital media channel based in Chandigarh. The matter has been listed for hearing on item 28 in the official causelist of the bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih. The case is registered under SMC (Crl) No. 000001/2025, titled "In Re: Scandalous Remarks Made By Mr. Ajay Shukla, Editor-in-Chief, Varprad Media Pvt. Ltd., a Digital Channel". The hearing is scheduled for tomorrow.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal Upon Surrender in Case Linked
While the specific remarks under scrutiny have not been officially detailed yet, it has been reported that Ajay Shukla recently posted a video in which he made certain statements against Justice Bela M. Trivedi. This video has sparked widespread attention, prompting the top court to take suo motu action for possible criminal contempt of court.
Ajay Shukla has served as the Editor-in-Chief of Varprad Media for over three years. Varprad Media is a digital news channel operating from Chandigarh. His comments, perceived as scandalous, have raised serious concerns regarding respect for the judiciary and the integrity of court proceedings.
"The Supreme Court has listed the matter for hearing in the official causelist, signaling its strong disapproval of the remarks made by Mr. Ajay Shukla," said a source familiar with the case.
This move by the Supreme Court comes under the framework of criminal contempt, which under Indian law, pertains to acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court, or obstruct the administration of justice.
“Criminal contempt includes making scandalous statements that can damage the public’s trust in the judiciary,” as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Read also: Supreme Court Orders Registry to Hold TDR Certificates for Bangalore Palace Acquisition
The top court’s decision to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings is a significant development. The judiciary is often cautious about exercising such powers, but in this case, the comments were deemed serious enough to warrant immediate action without a formal complaint being filed.
“The matter has been taken up suo motu by the bench headed by the CJI, which means the court is acting on its own motion without waiting for an external complaint,” a senior lawyer explained.
This incident highlights the crucial role of digital media and the responsibility of media personnel in maintaining decorum while reporting on or commenting about the judiciary.
Legal experts point out that freedom of expression, while fundamental, comes with certain responsibilities, especially when it involves public remarks against judges or the judicial system. The Supreme Court has historically maintained that fair criticism is acceptable, but scandalizing or undermining the authority of the court is not permissible.
The scheduled hearing will provide clarity on the exact nature of Shukla’s comments and the legal implications. It will also reflect the court’s stance on maintaining the dignity of the judiciary in the face of controversial public remarks.
