Advocate Seeks Attorney General's Consent to Pursue Contempt Case Against X Post Criticizing Supreme Court Bench
Advocate Kaushik Chatterjee has written to Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani requesting consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Saurav Das for a post published on X on October 4, 2026. The post alleged that a Supreme Court bench, including Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, would hold "absolutely ZERO CREDIBILITY" in people's eyes over their handling of petitions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in West Bengal and Bihar.
The application invokes Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which requires that criminal contempt proceedings against any person shall not be initiated without the consent of the Attorney General for India or the Solicitor General, or the law officer appointed by the state government. This procedural requirement protects against frivolous or motivated prosecutions.
The Bench's Electoral Roll Work
The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana has been hearing matters related to electoral roll revision in West Bengal and Bihar. The SIR, conducted by the Election Commission of India, resulted in the deletion of over 22 lakh voters from the electoral roll in West Bengal alone due to what the commission described as "logical discrepancies."
On October 8, 2026, the bench acknowledged a plea to prioritize appeals filed by voters whose names were deleted from the electoral rolls in Kolkata and Howrah municipalities, where municipal elections are scheduled. The court stated it was "conscious" of the matter and indicated it would consider the issue on October 16. The bench specifically indicated it would address whether excluded voters who have filed appeals should be permitted to vote in the upcoming municipal elections.
During these proceedings, the court orally suggested that appeals for the inclusion of voters in the West Bengal electoral roll should be heard first, while appeals for exclusion could be heard later. This observation reflected the court's engagement with the complex issues surrounding the electoral revision process and the substantial number of affected citizens seeking redress.
Criminal Contempt and Free Speech
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt is defined as conduct that scandalizes the court or lowers its authority. The act distinguishes between civil contempt, which involves disobedience of court orders, and criminal contempt, which includes acts that interfere with the administration of justice or lower the authority of the court.
Section 15(1)(b) specifically provides that no criminal contempt proceedings shall be initiated against any person except with the consent of the Attorney General for India, the Solicitor General, or the law officer appointed by the state government. This requirement reflects the principle that contempt of court is not merely a private grievance but a matter of public concern.
Courts have consistently held that judges, like other public officials, must tolerate criticism of their decisions and conduct. The right to criticize judicial orders and the reasoning behind them is considered essential to democratic accountability. However, statements that go beyond criticism of decisions and attack the integrity or impartiality of judges in terms calculated to undermine public confidence in the judicial system have been found to constitute contempt.
The Attorney General's office will need to assess whether Das's post crosses the threshold into contempt. The office will likely consider the context in which the statement was made, the audience on social media platforms like X, the potential impact on public perception of the judiciary, and whether the statement addresses the substance of judicial decisions or makes personal attacks on the judges involved.
The Broader Context
The request for contempt proceedings comes as the Supreme Court bench is engaged in hearing matters of significant public importance. The electoral revision process in West Bengal and Bihar has been controversial, with civil society organizations and political parties raising concerns about the methodology and scale of voter deletions.
The same bench has also been active in other high-profile matters. On October 8, 2026, the bench stayed bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and ordered the re-arrest of an accused in a significant narcotic drug trafficking case involving ₹3,000 crore and the seizure of 5,000 Tramadol tablets. The court made caustic remarks during this hearing, stating that the "mask must face the same consequences as the face" when questioning whether illegal detention prior to arrest could vitiate the arrest itself.
Additionally, the court examined rules for appointing the Jharkhand Director General of Police, stating that the rules appeared to be in conflict with an earlier decision.
What Happens Next
The Attorney General's office will now examine Chatterjee's request and determine whether to grant consent for the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. This decision will involve assessing whether the post constitutes contempt under the law or whether it represents commentary on judicial performance that falls within protected speech.
If the Attorney General grants consent, criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated in the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over contempt cases. The court would then hear arguments from both sides and determine whether the post constitutes contempt and, if so, what punishment is appropriate. If consent is refused, no contempt proceedings can be initiated based on this particular post.
The outcome will reflect the Attorney General's assessment of the balance between protecting judicial authority and preserving the right to criticize judicial conduct in a democratic society.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.