KURLE (Suo Motu Contempt Petition Criminal No. 2 of 2019) APRIL 27 & Ors. v. Kallol Guha Thakurta & Another. (2010) 8 SCC 673 : [2010] 10 & Ors.

7.1 There can be no manner of doubt that any citizen of the country can criticise the judgments delivered by any Court including this Court. However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge. Judges are part and parcel of the justice delivery system. By and large Judges are reluctant to take action under contempt laws when a personal attack is made on them. However, when there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar who profess to be the members of an organization having a large following, then the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made. If such allegations which have not only been communicated to the President of India and the Chief Justice of India, but also widely circulated on social media are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in the entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects the majesty of law. [Para 48][1051-G-H][1052-A-B] Defence of Truth

8.1 Truth as a defence is available to any person charged with contempt of Court. However, on going through all the written arguments and the pleadings, other than saying that the Judges had misinterpreted the judgments of this Court or had ignored them or that Judge of the Supreme Court was biased, there is no material placed on record to support this defence. The allegations are also scurrilous and scandalous and such allegations cannot be permitted to be made against the Judges of highest Court of the country. [Para 95][1077-A-C] Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795 – followed.