The Supreme Court’s recent observations expressing concern over the “growing and disturbing trend” of litigants and lawyers leveling scandalous allegations against judges should serve as a wake-up call for the entire legal fraternity. What was once unthinkable—open defiance of judicial authority, public vilification of judges, and even acts of physical aggression—has begun surfacing with alarming frequency. This episode is not merely about a few individuals crossing the line; it signifies a deeper erosion of respect for an institution that forms the backbone of India’s democracy.
The case involving litigant N. Peddi Raju and two lawyers, who made derogatory remarks against a judge of the Telangana High Court, exemplifies this troubling pattern. The Supreme Court rightly warned that such conduct undermines the integrity of the justice system. Yet, despite its stern words, the Court ultimately closed the contempt proceedings after accepting their apologies. While forgiveness has its place, a worrying tendency is emerging—repeated acts of contempt are being condoned under the guise of magnanimity. This leniency, though humane, may inadvertently embolden the very behaviour the Court seeks to discourage.
This is far from an isolated incident. From a shoe being hurled at the Chief Justice of India by a Supreme Court lawyer to the routine trolling of judges on social media, the boundaries of acceptable dissent are being eroded. In an age of instant digital outrage, court judgments are not just appealed in higher benches—they are mocked, misinterpreted, and dissected online by individuals with little understanding of the law. Disturbingly, lawyers and political actors often lead this chorus, lending misplaced legitimacy to mob-like criticism.
A dangerous culture of personalising judicial decisions has taken root. When a ruling does not align with one’s ideological leanings, the instinctive response now is to attack the judge rather than the reasoning. Such behaviour is profoundly damaging. Judges, though human and fallible, base their decisions on evidence, precedent, and statute. There exist well-defined mechanisms for review and appeal within the judicial hierarchy. Slander and theatrics outside the courtroom are not dissent—they are defiance of the rule of law.
Equally troubling is the rise of politically motivated litigation. Many petitions today are filed not to secure justice but to score political points or malign adversaries. As a result, the judiciary finds itself pulled into controversies that have little to do with legal merit. When lawyers—officers of the court—attach their signatures to petitions laced with defamatory or unfounded allegations, they betray not only their professional oath but also the very system that enables their practice.
The Supreme Court’s own recent decisions send mixed signals. The forgiveness extended to the lawyer who hurled a shoe at the Chief Justice, and the repeated acceptance of apologies in cases involving scurrilous remarks, may individually appear compassionate. Yet, taken together, they suggest a troubling reluctance to enforce consequences. The majesty of law rests not merely in justice delivered, but in the deterrence it inspires. Without accountability, boundaries lose their meaning. If individuals—especially those within the legal system—can malign judges and walk away with a simple apology, what message does this send to society? The law must be equal for all. Diluting procedures for lawyers undermines the very foundation of justice.
Bar councils, too, cannot remain passive. They must take firm disciplinary action against advocates who misuse their professional standing to vilify judges. Ethical codes and disciplinary mechanisms must be enforced, not merely displayed.
The judiciary’s credibility rests not only on the strength of its judgments but on its ability to command institutional respect. Courts cannot afford to appear helpless or overly conciliatory in the face of such assaults. Sooner or later, the Supreme Court must draw a firm, unambiguous line. Contempt of court is not about shielding egos—it is about protecting the sanctity of justice. The time has come to send a clear message: undermining the judiciary will invite strict consequences, irrespective of the offender’s profession or prominence.
